Writing for the "Old Single Mom" blog, Chicago area blogger J.A. demands that gun rights advocates show her "evidence that guns, and more specifically, that military-style assault weapons are a benefit to society." Failure to come up with an answer she deems satisfactory is presumably all the reason she would need to justify banning them (and perhaps confiscating them, as Obama would so dearly love to do). She challenges gun rights advocates:
Where are all the stories about where a semi-automatic weapon was the difference between tragedy and "happily ever after?"
I've got to warn you: I'm a tough sell. I've seen the Defensive Gun Use (#DGU) Reddit thread, and thwarting off a home invasion here and there is not enough to balance out hundreds of unexpected funerals for small children. You're going to have to give me more than that to win me over.
The residents who fought off the "home invasion here and there" might be forgiven for looking askance at the notion of their successful defense of their homes being so summarily dismissed. So might the Korean shopkeepers whose "assault weapons" were vital for the defense of their lives and livelihoods during the Rodney King riots in L.A.
Furthermore, she would have to go back rather a long time, and probably expand her search beyond the U.S., to find "hundreds of unexpected funerals for small children" whose deaths can be attributed to someone using an "assault weapon." With very little research, she might have discovered that many more people are killed with fists and hammers (or, alternatively, with fists and feet) than with all types of rifles, of which "assault weapons" are only a subset. Granted, not all so-called "assault weapons" are rifles, with some jurisdictions designating certain handguns and, even some shotguns, with that moniker, but rifles constitute the vast majority of "assault weapons."
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner has little interest in statistics, fully agreeing with Jeff Snyder's contention that fundamental human rights cannot be legitimately held hostage to any requirement for favorable statistical outcomes. But, as it turns out, "J.A." doesn't want to hear about fundamental human rights:
I am not looking for a discussion about that damned amendment. I so got it that there’s a “right to bear arms” in this country. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s push past this Rabbit Hole about what exactly our musket-bearing forefathers meant when they said Americans should be able to own guns.
That's a convenient path around the obstacle the right to keep and bear arms places in front of any agenda to ban guns--just claim that that conversation is over (without ever having started). She also wants to "push past" any talk of police and the military, beyond saying that when she calls the cops--while she is being attacked--she wants the cop (who apparently has somehow arrived before she is raped and murdered) to have a firearm, but not a semi-automatic one (the smart money here would be on the bet that she hasn't told cops of her plan to limit them to revolvers).
But it's not that easy, J.A. You can't just dismiss the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms because you're tired of hearing about it, any more than someone who demands you justify the societal benefits of your blog, or he'll ban it, can dismiss your First Amendment rights, because he "so got it that there's a right to" free speech, and doesn't want to hear about it.
J.A. repeatedly asks, "What am I missing?" Well, rather a lot of things, J.A., chief among them being that no one owes you any justification of our right to own militia-appropriate "regime change rifles."
If you're a regular St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Kurt Hofmann) and Twitter (@45superman), and telling your like-minded friends about it.