Why do they always blame the gun ?

[Pointshoot]

Because people arent taught logic . . . .

They blame the gun because people arent taught logic, history, or the about the foundations of our nation - a Constitutional Republic. Those who push this anti 2A agenda from the top know that too many people are carried along by emotions. Theyre not taught to think in the 'schools' today.

Using DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (going from the details to the bigger picture), after such a crime people would ask the who, what, where, when, and why of this ? How did the shooter get in the building ? How did the barriers to entry fail ? Could they be improved ? How long did it take for police to arrive (external response) ? What might have happened if an armed defender had been on the scene (internal response) ? What kind of person was the shooter ? Did his taking of psychiatric medications play a role ? The shooter killed his own mother and took her rifle. Would any of these proposals made any difference ? How has the external cosmetic features of some rifles had any impact on violent crimes ? (No impact). And finally, though this was a tragic event - how likely is this to happen ? (Less probable than being struck by lightening.) Does it make sense to take actions that are ineffective to 'prevent' events that are highly unlikely ?

Instead, the antis use false INDUCTIVE LOGIC. They observe a few things and make a broad conclusion based on no evidence. "Children were killed. The gun used was of a certain type and has certain features. So we must ban them in order to protect the children." There is no evidence that their 'solution' will have any impact at all - again, this is less likely than being struck by lightening. They won't listen to evidence or counter arguments. theyre not really interested in hearing other proposals. Afterall, theyve already made their mind up as to 'the answer'.

IMO those at the top pushiing the anti 2A agenda know exactly what they are doing. And, they know these methods and the media propaganda are very effective with many people. So we need to point this out to others.

"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and can never be." - Thomas Jefferson

[ I recently heard about the use of false inductive logic versus deductive logic to go after the 2A. It was in an interview of Ralph Winterrowd done on Jan 16, with John Stadtmiller on republicbroadcasting.org ]

 

[MedWheeler]

Rezin writes:

Fear causes people to be irrational. They are scared of an armed populace.

I disagree with the first line. There is nothing irrational in the strategy of mobilizing the common public to rally for one's cause. Those who want the power the common people currently hold are doing just this, and it's working. This is a well-orchestrated attack on that security the population holds. The ammunition the enemy is using against us is very powerful and effective.
If we were up against nothing more than irrationality, our fight would be over very quickly.

Now, because the common people do hold significant power, both politically and logistically, the second line in your post is true.

 

[CraigC]

Because it is easy.

It is far easier to pass a law banning an inanimate object than it is to look within and realize that there are fundamental problems in our society that cannot be legislated away, much less to actually correct them. Violence is merely a symptom. A symptom of very little personal responsibility, complacency and flexible morality. The problem is that "We the people..." are doomed to repeat the history of every other free, civilized culture.

 

[racenutz]

1) They are truly fearful of guns.
2) If guns were eliminated, there would be less violence.
3) They want to confiscate guns so only the elite/powerful will have them.
4) They do not understand the pleasures of gun ownership nor do they care.
5) They do not believe in the concept of an evil man.
6) Something must be done immediately and the gun is the lazy man’s solution

Another one that occurs to me is they consider killing to be wrong no matter the situation.

 

[gym]

Because they have been told the gun is the problem for 50 years. People on the whole are not too smart, they have atendancy to follow each other like sheep.
If you tell them something enough they just take it as being true

 

[mnrivrat]

First of all I think it is important to know who "they" are.
It's not just the politicians and media . It is our fellow citizens who keep voting for these politicians, and keep supporting the networks without complaint.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

If you look at the voting public you will see that large cities have taken over the ability to elect candidates to office. The majority of these large city dwellers have never been around guns except for the violence that surrounds them in the city. Their mind set is totaly different than ours as they have no dog in the fight other than what they see around them and hear on TV.

JustinJ wrote :

Gun control measures have nothing to do with blaming the gun. People see guns as a variable in an equation of gun violence. Right or wrong, they believe removing said variable will prevent people from being able to commit heinous acts such as Sandy Hook. It is simply trying to remove an means to an end. They don't believe that removing guns will make people no longer want to commit horrible acts of violence but rather prevent some from doing so or at least limiting the damage when they do. We can disagree with the potential effectiveness or argue that infringing on the second amendment is not worth the cost but the "don't blame the gun mantra" is a rebuttal to an argument that does not exist. It makes us look foolish and unable to comprehend a simple point.

More true than what most people realize.

 

[jbrown50]

So are efforts to limit nuclear proliferation just people blaming nukes? Rather than stop countries from having nukes should we only try and look at the reasons why they want them?

Gun control measures have nothing to do with blaming the gun. People see guns as a variable in an equation of gun violence. Right or wrong, they believe removing said variable will prevent people from being able to commit heinous acts such as Sandy Hook. It is simply trying to remove an means to an end. They don't believe that removing guns will make people no longer want to commit horrible acts of violence but rather prevent some from doing so or at least limiting the damage when they do. We can disagree with the potential effectiveness or argue that infringing on the second amendment is not worth the cost but the "don't blame the gun mantra" is a rebuttal to an argument that does not exist. It makes us look foolish and unable to comprehend a simple point.

I agree with that.

We need to understand the general anti mindset.

We should also not discount the ones who truly believe for one reason or another that the 2A is obsolete/outdated and civilians shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms period.

 

[UnitMaster]

It's very simple. What is a politician's job?
Their job is not to manage the country.

Their job is to get elected / re-elected.
To get elected or re-elected they must accumulate votes.

There are only three ways to accumulate votes.
1. Either buy them by promising to give them someone else's money.
2. Pray on their ignorant fears, to ensure irrational support.
3. Speak the truth, and pray the proletariat is wise.

 

[xwray]

Nobody, not even socialists, are so stupid/ignorant to believe such complete and utter nonsense that this government and their willing accomplices the "press" is putting out regarding how what they are proposing will stop crime and enhance public safety. So, why are they doing it? One reason: to disarm the American populace. Period! I will leave it to your imagination as to why they are so desperate to do so. Study history.

 

[Adam the Gnome]

Isn't this the whole reason for the 2A? They will always blame something instead of someone because the crazy people vote too.