![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/HandgunBand.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
From my Facebook page today. Words of David Maher will be in blue<\/span>, Nick Hardesty\u2019s in green<\/span>.\u00a0I put up a meme that stated:<\/p>\n \u201cGun Control\u201d doesn\u2019t mean what you think it means<\/p>\n It means only the state will have guns<\/p>\n If you think that\u2019s a good idea you need to read a history book<\/p>\n [with a picture of a soldier (Nazi?) about to shoot an unarmed, crying female captive]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n The absence of gun control is a completely unregulated gun industry where five year olds and murderers on day release can buy fully automatic weapons at will.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe if people didn\u2019t post nonsense about \u201cgun control\u201d we could have intelligent debates about appropriate levels of gun control, but as it is, that doesn\u2019t seem to be the case.<\/span><\/p>\n There is obviously a \u201chappy medium\u201d there.<\/p>\n Of course, but that \u201chappy medium\u201d is legitimately called \u201cgun control\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Memes like the one above, intended to scare people into thinking that any mention of \u201cgun control\u201d automatically equates to \u201ctake all their guns\u201d is directly opposed to that \u201chappy medium\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Isn\u2019t it?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s actual, relevant history that ought to be considered. Dictatorships always took away all guns. There is a happy medium. I basically think that handguns with strict background tests are fine. Machine guns (for non-police \/ non-military) are not.<\/p>\n I\u2019m with David, this meme is absolutely ridiculous.<\/span><\/p>\n Is it ridiculous that Chicago has very strict gun laws and kids are being gunned down every day?<\/p>\n The meme is simply showing what can<\/em><\/strong> happen and actually has<\/em> <\/strong>happened. As liberals keep going further left, it\u2019s a live possibility that they\u00a0will pass extreme laws.<\/p>\n No one would have ever thought we would have abortion for all nine months and \u201cgay marriage.\u201d Both things happened, and now infanticide and euthanasia are increasingly legalized in the liberal states.<\/p>\n Either the happy medium is legitimately called \u201cgun control\u201d or it\u2019s not.<\/span><\/p>\n The meme, in depicting accurate history, seeks to skew people\u2019s perception in the direction of assuming that there is no happy medium because all \u201cgun control\u201d is code for \u201cthey want to take away all your guns and enslave you\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, it\u2019s saying (between the lines) that there are indeed politicians who want the extreme view to become law.\u00a0I don\u2019t think this extreme actually will happen in the US, because the Bill of Rights is too entrenched. But there are indeed liberals who would advocate the extreme view, and that\u2019s not a joke.<\/p>\n I agree that it would be better if it was more nuanced, so these objections couldn\u2019t be made. But what it does show is that there is such a thing as totalitarian states that took away all private guns, and we got the Holocaust as the fruit. And Nazi Germany isn\u2019t the only example.<\/p>\n Does the fact that those extremes exist, justify advocating (as the meme does) for the opposite extreme (no gun control whatsoever)?<\/span><\/p>\n No. I think there needs to be sensible, rational regulation. I\u2019ve always thought so (so does the NRA, actually). My position is actually quite \u201cmoderate\u201d by today\u2019s standards. I don\u2019t own a gun, and have never shot any firearm since I was a kid some 50 years ago, with .22 rifles. I\u2019ve never gone hunting in my life, either.<\/p>\n But if things keep getting worse, I may very well buy and carry a handgun.<\/p>\n One example of insanity and an extreme position against guns is shown in the reluctance to even have armed, trained guards in schools, so massacres can be prevented; or to arm teachers. Those things demonstrably save lives, yet people oppose them, and they do because that is an extreme position, that amounts to callousness towards possible massive loss of life.<\/p>\n I found an example of such extremity in five seconds, from a major liberal magazine:\u00a0\u201cIt\u2019s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them\u201d<\/a> (Phoebe Maltz Bovy, The New Republic<\/em>, 12-10-15).\u00a0<\/span>He even admits:<\/p>\n I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that \u201cgun control\u201d at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So this is precisely what we are talking about. For this guy \u2014 at least in the past \u2014 \u201cgun control\u201d did<\/em><\/strong> literally mean a ban on all<\/strong><\/em> of them: even \u201cas much as possible, on police.\u201d<\/p>\n Here\u2019s another one: \u201cUnsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns\u201d<\/a> (Violence Policy Center<\/em>, 2000):<\/p>\n A clear-cut plan to ban handguns should be developed and implemented soon.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This<\/strong> <\/em>sort of thing is, I think, what the meme is responding to. Like all memes, it\u2019s not exhaustive<\/em> or nuanced<\/em>. It can\u2019t<\/em> be, with just a few words. It expresses a general sentiment, like biblical proverbs do.\u00a0Memes are what they are. It\u2019s good to have discussions like this about<\/strong><\/em> them, where many more thoughts and clarifications can be expressed. And this will be a new dialogue on my blog.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n You stated \u2026<\/p>\n One example of insanity and an extreme position against guns is shown in the reluctance to even have armed, trained guards in schools, so massacres can be prevented; or to arm teachers. Those things demonstrably save lives, yet people oppose them, and they do because that is an extreme position, that amounts to callousness towards possible massive loss of life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think you slipped a little ad hominem<\/em> in there towards the end, and I could easily do the opposite arguing that gun advocates reject measures to reduce the number of guns, citing the 2nd amendment, and in doing so proclaim \u201cyour child\u2019s death is a price I\u2019m willing to pay in order to keep my guns\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Isn\u2019t that an equally callous position?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, there are those who advocate for extreme positions such as banning (almost) all guns or banning (almost) all handguns, as demonstrated by the links you\u2019ve provided.<\/span><\/p>\n On the other side, you mention in your article the \u201cmadman in Las Vegas\u201d. So far as gun rights advocates are concerned, Nevada is almost paradise with virtually unregulated open carry laws, a \u201cshall issue\u201d position on concealed carry, no permit required to buy guns, no registration required of owned guns, no restrictions for assault weapons or on magazine capacity.<\/span><\/p>\n (even in casino gamerooms, where they often have \u201cno guns allowed\u201d signs posted, those signs can\u2019t be enforced by law. People carrying guns can be asked to leave and be charged with trespassing if they don\u2019t, but they can\u2019t be charged with a firearms offence unless they actually use, or attempt to use those guns)<\/span><\/p>\n That<\/em><\/strong> is the environment in which the \u201cMadman in Las Vegas\u201d killed 58 people and wounded 413. Every single one of those people (probably excluding minors, I\u2019m not sure) and the many others present at the concert, in the hotel and elsewhere in the vicinity could have legally been armed with an assault weapon with a large capacity magazine and returned fire withing seconds.<\/span><\/p>\n They didn\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n Why didn\u2019t they? Because even those who were armed, are constrained by laws preventing them firing blithely towards a hotel. Unless they could be assured of a clear shot that would only hit the perpetrator, they would be risking the lives of other innocent civilians, making a terrible situation just that much worse.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s true that, in the vast majority of school shootings, the perpetrators don\u2019t choose vantage points from which to shoot that grant them the freedom to shoot that many targets before a response can be mounted that disrupts their plans, but armed guards will never \u201cprevent\u201d school shootings. They might end them quicker than if they had to wait for a police response, but to legitimately argue for \u201cprevention\u201d in a state that has laws that make it relatively easy for people to access guns (legally or illegally) you\u2019d need your armed guards to have every single student in their sights at all times and for them to be authorised to shoot first before the (suspected) shooter gets off their first shot.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a completely unrealistic model, making \u201cprevention\u201d a sad euphemism for \u201cminimisation\u201d and a lie perpetrated against those who think otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n [replying to someone else] Thanks for your assertion \u201cNo type Gun Control prevents criminals from getting their hands guns.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I suppose that\u2019s true in the same way that \u201cLaws against murder don\u2019t prevent people from committing murder\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n But I don\u2019t think its true in the sense that \u201cLaws against murder have no impact on whether people choose to commit murder or not\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Is it true that all a \u201ccriminal\u201d has to do in order to get a gun is put their hand up and ask for one and subsequently have it given to them? No it\u2019s not.<\/span><\/p>\n They have to go out of their way to get a gun. The tighter and more effective gun control laws are, the harder criminals have to work to get a gun. If they deem it to be more hassle than it\u2019s worth, they never get a gun, and never engage in gun crime.<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s a reason that gun related crime is lower per capita in countries like England and Australia, and it isn\u2019t because we have less people predisposed towards committing crime, it\u2019s because it\u2019s harder<\/strong><\/em> (not impossible) for those criminally minded to access guns.<\/span><\/p>\n One of the huge<\/em> <\/strong>problems that face the U.S. so far as gun control laws are concerned, is that currently there are something like four times the number of guns in circulation than there are Americans. Obviously since people like Dave (and many others) don\u2019t have any, that means there are millions of people with way more than four guns each.<\/span><\/p>\n Compound that with the fact that the contiguous mainland states have extremely porous borders, and you have a situation where, for any gun regulations to even be remotely effective, they\u2019d need to be implemented across the board in every state.<\/span><\/p>\n One state might have a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, but if a neighbouring state doesn\u2019t then all one has to do to access those things is drive across the border, buy them, and drive back. That might technically make one a criminal, but in my experience, interacting with a number of gun advocates online, most that I encounter use the term \u201claw abiding\u201d as a matter of convenience, and not a statement of principle, meaning they\u2019ll go on and on about how gun regulations only make life difficult for \u201claw abiding citizens\u201d like themselves, but when pushed, indicate that they\u2019d happily break the law and shoot their fellow Americans dead if a law was passed that required even one of their guns being confiscated.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n There is no mention of \u201csome people\u201d in the meme it doesn\u2019t say that \u201cto some people, gun control does not mean what you think it means\u201d it does not go on to say \u201cto them, it means only the state will have guns\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n It says \u201cGun control DOES NOT mean what you think it means\u201d. It goes on to say \u201cIT MEANS only the state will have guns\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Now either those statements are accurate without the need for nuance, or if they need nuance added in order to become true, then without that nuance they\u2019re grossly misleading.<\/span><\/p>\n I know Dave is an intelligent person. I presume, that if you\u2019re here, then you\u2019re a fairly intelligent person.<\/span><\/p>\n I also know that the internet is full of people who seemingly get all of their knowledge about public policy from memes, and if such people were to see this meme, they\u2019d be inclined to reject any discussion of the \u201chappy medium\u201d Dave has spoken of further up in the thread, because they accept, as fact, that \u201cGun control mean only the state will have guns\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve interacted with such people, and they\u2019re a truly terrifying group of people who have fully bought into the state sponsored religion of the second amendment.<\/span><\/p>\n They \u201cknow\u201d that it\u2019s not a matter of \u201cif\u201d but a matter of \u201cwhen\u201d the government will come for their guns and are eagerly anticipating killing as many of their fellow Americans as possible in their efforts to defend their second amendment rights.<\/span><\/p>\n You might not see the meme as pandering towards that kind of mentality, because you probably think that mentality is just plain silly, but, that doesn\u2019t stop them from existing, or from feeling that if a prominent, Catholic intellectual supports them fully (which they could conceivably assume from seeing Dave post this meme, never bothering to read any of this discussion) then they\u2019d likely also assume that the war they intend to fight against the corrupt government \u201cwhen\u201d it comes for their guns, is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Catholic church.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not worried about Dave\u2019s position on gun control, nor am I worried about yours.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m worried about theirs.<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for your additional comments. I will add them to my blog post, which will mean that your text will probably be 3-4 times the amount of mine.<\/p>\n I had no desire to engage in an in-depth discussion on gun control. I laid out broad outlines of my position, which is not thought-through down to fine details. I simply noted that there is a sensible middle ground between no regulation and total bans. It\u2019s a good and necessary discussion to be had, among citizens and politicians both. We do have \u201cright to bear arms\u201d after all, right in our bill of Rights in the Constitution. It means something<\/em>.<\/p>\n What is your position, then (please be as brief as you can), on how much regulation should be in play, and how far our right to bear arms extends?<\/p>\n I stand by my defense of the meme, on the basis that all memes, by nature (rather like tweets, but with the visual element, too) cannot exhaustively state positions, but only make general comments. For any thinking person (I submit) this is understood and taken for granted, as all generalities admit of specific exceptions.<\/p>\n Will nuts take such memes the wrong way? Yes: but our reply is that this can\u2019t possibly be prevented. Nuts distort and twist absolutely everything, including Christian theology and the Bible. We can\u2019t discard the Bible because wackos and extremists butcher it. And we can\u2019t get rid of all memes: satirical and \u201cserious\u201d (like this one) because unbalanced (and otherwise unwise) people don\u2019t grasp what a meme is and what it is trying to accomplish.<\/p>\n In your first comment, you stated, \u201cMaybe if people didn\u2019t post nonsense about \u2018gun control\u2019 we could have intelligent debates about appropriate levels of gun control.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That was obviously a shot at me. Yet the exact opposite<\/em> has been the case (especially now with your latest extended comments): a very intelligent and useful debate has occurred, and it did precisely<\/em> because the meme stirred up these thoughts that you have presented, which in turn stimulated my replies: though I did not, and do not intend to get into the depth that you have, because there are many people far more qualified than I am, that can do so.<\/p>\n So the meme led to a great discussion that wouldn\u2019t have occurred (here) apart from the meme. Therefore, your assessment was incorrect. The meme might be regarded as a reductio ad absurdum<\/em>, which led to your passionate denial that what the meme expressed was true. Broadly speaking, the meme is<\/em><\/strong> true. These things have<\/em>\u00a0happened in dictatorships. And at least some<\/em> people actually have<\/em> indeed defined \u201cgun control\u201d as a total ban (as I documented).<\/p>\n The meme could and should have been more nuanced: as much as possible<\/em> in a meme. I granted that early on. But it led to a good discussion: which is where these things can be adequately worked through.<\/p>\n For the record, I\u2019m Australian, so much of my perspective comes from seeing America and in particular American gun culture as somewhat alien.<\/span><\/p>\n That said, I have this notion that the second amendment (as it\u2019s defended by gung-ho gun rights advocates I\u2019ve personally interacted with) seems to be a kind of \u201cstate sponsored religion\u201d that would seem to be unconstitutional under the first amendment.<\/span><\/p>\n Forgive me if I don\u2019t quote it exactly, but the part of the 2nd amendment that speaks about a well regulated militia being NECESSARY for the security of the state, is an unprovable hypothesis that is accepted by many of these gun advocates as if it\u2019s gospel. And I\u2019ve seen them argue that Australia and England CAN\u2019T be free states because we don\u2019t have an American style 2nd amendment. I\u2019ve further seen them argue that it\u2019s INEVITABLE that their own American government WILL turn on the people and only the gun owners of America will be able to save their countrymen from tyranny (provided they don\u2019t kill those countrymen for being complicit with the inevitable tyrannical government.<\/span><\/p>\n While I do acknowledge that there are historical examples, like Nazi Germany, where tyranny went hand in hand with the disarmament of the populace, I live in Australia, have probably seen a total of about ten guns with my own eyes (not counting those in the possession of police or military), and I have virtually no concern of being forced to live in tyranny by my government.<\/span><\/p>\n So I regard a certain level of American gun culture as simply paranoia.<\/span><\/p>\n That said, it\u2019s obvious that given American history, it\u2019d be impossible and impractical to impose Australian style gun control laws in the US. As I mentioned earlier, many gun advocates (who complain about gun control laws only affecting non-criminals) have indicated their willingness to become criminals if they feel their second amendment rights are being infringed.<\/span><\/p>\n What ever gun control laws are introduced NEED to be nation wide (because of the porous borders between states) and if the NRA were really concerned about that \u201chappy medium\u201d you speak of, they\u2019d be completely on board.<\/span><\/p>\n I think that as a bare minimum, gun sales should only occur after background checks and all guns should be registered, private sales likewise should have those same requirements, lest the registered owner be deemed responsible for crimes committed with their guns. There should be mandatory safety laws regarding the storage of guns and ammunition to prevent five year olds killing each other with Dad\u2019s handgun that he keeps in the bedside table.<\/span><\/p>\n None of these would greatly inconvenience gun owners and would likely slow down the constant stream of guns winding up in the hands of criminals.<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously it would take time to remove the millions of guns already held by criminal elements, but if Americans really were serious about wanting to cut down the likelihood of teenagers getting their hands on numerous weapons etc, then they\u2019re small inconveniences for long lasting benefits.<\/span><\/p>\n Sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Gun Control and Deep-Rooted Societal Causes of Massacres<\/a> [10-5-17]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>13smok<\/a>\u00a0(9-11-17)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From my Facebook page today. Words of David Maher will be in blue, Nick Hardesty\u2019s in green.\u00a0I put up a meme that stated: \u201cGun Control\u201d doesn\u2019t mean what you think it means It means only the state will have guns If you think that\u2019s a good idea you need to read a history book [with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":44103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[289],"tags":[10254,402,10260,10269,4435,4434,10266,10263,1297,2932,820,2021,4436,4441,10257,1088,1520,819],"class_list":["post-44100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-political-ethical-moral-issues","tag-banning-guns","tag-crime","tag-crime-prevention","tag-firearm-restrictions","tag-gun-control","tag-guns","tag-handgun-bans","tag-handguns","tag-madmen","tag-mass-murder","tag-mass-murderers","tag-massacres","tag-nra","tag-orlando","tag-second-amendment","tag-self-defense","tag-terrorism","tag-terrorists"],"yoast_head":"\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:<\/span>\u00a0If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n