Sunday, April 7, 2013

Rachel Maddow destroys regressive illogic on guns

In this clip she meticulously and scrupulously debunks the absurd and pure demagoguery being used by regressives  The gun lobby's first argument was why have new gun laws when criminals don't obey them anyway? Hence the law doesn't work. So why then have laws against murder, since people murder anyway? Why have any laws at all, since they will be broken? That is what follows from such nonsensical premises.

Since that obvious fallacy has been exposed they're trying a new one. Because there are rare experts at reloading gun magazines, why limits a magazine's capacity? It doesn't matter if a magazine can hold 10 or 100 bullets, since experts can change them so fast as to make no difference. But everyone is not an expert at changing magazines. In fact most aren't. The shooter in Tucson that shot Gabby Giffords had a high capacity clip and was stopped when he took the time to reload. Eleven children escaped in Sandy Hook in the time it took the shooter to reload.

So yes, criminals will still find guns with new laws, and possibly larger clips. But by enacting such laws it will make it all the more difficult and stem at least some of these tragedies, and/or make them less severe. Combined with background checks and gun registries even more can be prevented. But to suggest that we shouldn't even try is like saying we shouldn't take preventive measures against cancer because people get it anyway. Or that we shouldn't have stop signs because people run them anyway. Such measures work in a lot of cases for public safety and health, and without them anarchy and the law of the jungle rule. Ah, but that is the rub, for this is exactly the kind of 'society' the gun nuts want: an Old West where the strong survive and the rest get gunned down in the process.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.