An opinion piece in Australia's Courier Mail demonstrates how prejudice, and playing fast and loose with cause and effect, are used to create public fear when it comes to both dogs and guns:
Take a deadly weapon out ot [sic] the reach of a potentially irresponsible owner...and the risk of firearm-related violence is reduced.
Well, we're all "potentially irresponsible," now, aren't we? Even members of the military and police fit under that broad umbrella, unless one subscribes to (what should by now be) the thoroughly discredited "Only Ones" theory.
Which means, if one follows this "logic," all guns must be banned--for everyone.
The same could be said of potentially dangerous breeds of dogs.
Ah...because some people are irresponsible, you see. Some are even criminal. And the rest of us have that potential. So the solution?
Quite simply, if they are trained in the wrong manner, or mistreated, they can become deadly weapons and should be banned.
Not if they have actually acted out in a violent manner, but if they have the potential to do so, if they "can"... And again, if "wrong" training or treatment are the qualifiers (and who gets to define that?), no one can have any dog.
This all goes to the heart of the gun controller's dream--prior restraint on your rights because of what you might be capable of doing. Take that line far enough and off go our hands, potential stranglers that we are. Next up, all you proto-rapists...
The anti-freedom zealots don't trust you, and their fear is all the claim they need to limit your choices. At least that's the way they intend to make things.
And there are some who are more than happy to exploit such paranoia, as long as they hold the leash to their own attack dogs.
------------
Did you miss "Trigger Sports LIVE!"?
No worries, you can see it again throughout the next week by clicking here.
My segment starts about 20 minutes into things, but I really recommend you watch the entire program--Host James B. Towle puts on a good one, and I really like what he's doing. Besides, not only is there a relevant video that our discussion is based upon preceding my appearance, but Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner John Pierce comes on shortly after to discuss open carry.
Comments
Having been chewed and slashed by various peoples ill-bred and undisciplened dogs, and having read about the 80yr. old woman torn to pieces by six Rottweillers,in her own front yard in Tyler Texas, I understand the fear and loathing. I wouldn't forbid anyone to keep a dog, but I am fed up with a lot of dog owners who are careless. Your dog attacks me or mine, it, and quite possibly you, are done.
Except for one doctrine in law: Every dog gets one bite.
This means that a court cannot infer from a single dogbite case whether a dog is 'aggressive' and dangerous. One does not know or cannot see proof that a dog on its first foray was not provoked. Only when it happens again can the dog be said to be aggressive or innocent in the otherwise absence of proof the thing was provoked. When its so uncertain on the first case, courts have allowed a dogowner's dog one bite.
Translation for leftists: going on "potential' then becomes meaningless (as a dog gets one Get-out-of-the-dogpound card. He's out of the doghouse or gets out of jail on the first offense as a general rule).
How this applies to gun owners would be that a gunnie isn't necessarily violent on questionable circumstances, and by extension, to presume that, before any such incident, one is violent is to express a hostility to freedom with really nothing to do with safety.
Sean--absolutely no disagreement. Which is why I recommend humans possess the means of defense against all attack animals, not just the two-legged variety, and maintain that anyone who opposes that is anti-human.
Would there even be anti-freedom zealots if there were no irresponsible gun or dog owners? Yes there would be. Zealots think they are special and the rules don't apply to them; but they love to make the rules. Back to responsibility. There is no room on this planet for irresponsible ownership of anything because of the huge number of litigious attention hogs and money grubbers. People who do not respect freedoms merely want everyone else to be as miserable as they are. My two cents worth.
Outstanding article, David. You really cut right to the point of the matter: that "gun control" is more about control than about guns. Because the concept of REAL equality sounds great to some people, until they find out that means the rabble, too.
Yeah, this coming from a country that disarmed their own citizens a little over a year afo and can't explain why crimes have skyrocketed since that move was made. The gun grabbers portray firearms as something with a personality in order to demonize them. I was at the 6396 hearing last week and one of the supporters of this piece of legislation testified that her son was killed by a "gun that acted impulsively". More people die in car accidents or drowning in swimming pools each year than they do by firearms, so why not hearing about Car violence, swimming pool ciolence and airplane violence when a plane crashes or is blown up by terrorists weilding bombs? This is garbage from people who are simply afraid of their own tendencies so they project that fear upon us and the general public. I don't know one single legal firearm owner who would ever treat their firearm as a toy or in any careless manner. Anyone who would disarm their own citizens are FOOLS who have no understanding of 2Amen
"Except for one doctrine in law: Every dog gets one bite."
Your jurisdiction may vary, but around here the above freebie is not extended to dogs who's owners cannot show proof of current rabies vaccination. No proof of shots and Fido's brain gets removed for examination. Kinda rough on the pooch.
The four breeds commonly referred to as "pit bulls" are also banned in Miami-Dade County. Of course that hasn't really stopped too many people from owning them. Not a whole lot of difference between illegal dogs, illegal drugs, and illegal guns. Criminals get to have whatever they want to pay for.
When pit bulls are outlawed.....
I have, for the biggest part of my life, preached against the punishment of "potential" behavior. To my knowledge, reason, logic, facts, extrapolations of how such laws can and have been abused, has not changed one mind. Not one.
The thing I notice that all those I have engaged in this futile exercise of morality and liberty have in common, is that every singele damn one of them felt they were special and everyone else would recognize that and never, ever use such abuesable laws against them. Therefore they didn't care what happened to anyone else. If sociopathy comes in degrees and I think it does, it is far more widespread than most know.
David, while I am glad to see you tackle the issue of punishment of potential behavior I believe that those who will hear you, don't need to . The ones who need to hear and internalize it will not because they are moral cripples incapable of it. [cont]
[cont] However, the bright spot is that those of us who are not moral cripples, will know that we have warned them and while we may regret having to harm them when they push too far, we will need feel no guilt. That will rest on their hook.
Regarding "potential", it reminds me of the story of the general and the female journalist. His answer: "Because you have all of the equipment necessary to be a prostitute, does it mean you are a prostitute?"
One rule to evaluate the justification of laws/policies: Has someone violated another's right to life, liberty, or property? If so, the offender has forfeited their own right to life, liberty, or property respectively. If they haven't violated the same, then no crime has been committed, and any attempt to hinder their free action is itself a violation of rights.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!