The Conspiracy Theory Surrounding Gun Control
The topic of gun control in the United States is a rather difficult one to process because politics have gotten in the way of reasoned debate. Most Americans, all of them, favor expansion of laws that require background checks on all gun purchases, that includes Republicans, the party that is on the gun rights side of the debate. According to the same poll, 54% of Republicans even favor a ban on assault style weapons, again the party most in favor of gun rights. In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, those on the pro-gun side repeated a simple mantra, "don't politicize the tragedy." There are two problems with this sentiment, the first is that it was not a "tragedy" it was a massacre. A "tragedy" isn't something that a person can control. It's a tragedy when a landslide kills a bunch of people, or someone dies suddenly from a disease. When one person commits an act of mass murder, it's a massacre, senseless violence, but not a tragedy. Secondly, when you tell someone not to politicize an event, you are politicizing the event. What is meant here is that, we shouldn't politicize the event in a way that disagrees with my politics.
I'm not coming down on one side of this debate or another. I'm a skeptic, so I have to follow the evidence. Background checks would not have stopped the deaths, but background checks make sense and in this information age it would not be hard to set up a system that would allow sellers to check the background of buyers. An "assault weapons" ban would have done something, as we've had assault weapon bans in the past and they seemed to work (although in a relatively small fashion as the amount of crimes committed with such weapons has always been historically low). It's worth noting that the 1994 ban was supported by 77% of the population and the House was written to by former presidents Reagan, Carter, and Ford at the time.
It is a matter of debate though, what kind of laws should be passed and what kind of laws would be effective, and again, I'm not coming down on one side or another here. I only cite the above law and the support of it to show a historical precedent of support. What I really want to talk about is the motivation behind some of the anti-gun control measures and the conspiracy surrounding it.
After the Sandy Hook murders, Piers Morgan and Alex Jones had a gun control debate. Alex Jones, alternative medicine salesman and conspiracy theorist, is on the side of gun rights while Piers Morgan, was on the gun control side. The problem that Jones has, is that he can't just make a point and then let it lie. He doesn't know how to make a cogent argument, in one part of the exchange he begins talking about how government is responsible for more deaths in history than anything else. It's not, malaria is, but that's not the point. The point is that Jones represents a side of the gun control argument that is so steeped in conspiracy rhetoric that we have no choice but to take its seriously.
It's based on the fallacy of a false dichotomy. I should know I used to be on the conspiracist side of this argument. The world view espoused here is that owning a gun, specifically a civilian version of a military weapon is the only thing that protects our freedom. The argument is that the 2nd amendment was specifically put in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the right of citizens to revolt, and to revolt they would need guns. Thus the 2nd amendment is about the right of the individual to own whatever gun they want, including military style weapons. Now this interpretation is not something that exists prior to the 90s and didn't become a matter of law until 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller (544 US. 570) where Scalia effectively made the pronouncement with little to no judicial precedent. The last part is a legal matter, of which I'm not entirely capable of making judgment. However the attitude in the 90s I am.
The problem with this aspect of the debate is that rests on the idea that the only thing stopping the government from taking over is my ownership of an AR-15 or similar rifle. Those believing this, usually postulate their almost permanent enemy--the UN as just waiting for Americans to lose their gun rights so that the blue helmets can march in and...something. That something usually has to do with FEMA camps, brainwashing, and mass incarcerations. To what end? I've no idea, and I didn't have an idea back then either.
There are a number of problems with this. The first being that the government already has control, that's why we call it the government. It makes the laws, collects the taxes, and runs the military. What more control could "they" be seeking? Secondly, we've seen time and time again that the UN is largely an incapable military organization. They were unable to stop massacres in Africa and Europe, and in some cases have even contributed to the problems there. Thirdly, the claim is also that the UN is solely focused on the US, not Canada or Mexico but wants to conquer the middle swathe of the North American continent, that seems just impractical.
Finally it's the fantasy of it all, let's assume it is all true. Laws are passed by President Trump to remove all firearms from the American populace. Then a heavily militarized police force consisting of our friends, family members, and neighbors begins to round us all up with help from the UN expeditionary force. How is that going to play out for the average Alex Jones listener? They think that they are going to retreat into the woods with their rifle and a backpack full of supplies (of Jones's garbage nutrient supplements) and fight off the invading army. The Rambo/Die Hard/ Red Dawn scenario is just their fantasy. Here's the problem, the military has tanks, they have attack helicopters, and perhaps most importantly they have MQ-9 Reaper drones. So, unless these people are also advocating the ability of the average American to buy and possess FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles or FIM-92 Stinger missiles the argument is moot. Sure they can cite the American Revolution, which was won by armies facing off in battle; or even the Afghani war against the USSR--but in both cases the wars required foreign support and technology beyond what a few insurgents could muster up in the wilderness. This doesn't even consider just the presence of surveillance and reconnaissance packages that the mythical enemy could produce. The argument is completely implausible.
And before I get the comments: no, I'm not saying resistance against a totalitarian regime isn't worth it. What I am saying is that owning a semi-automatic AR-15 with a 45 round clip and enough attachments to reasonably describe it as a "Barbie doll gun" isn't what's stopping the government from "taking over." In order to have a reasonable and productive argument concerning gun laws we have to dispense with this portion of the debate, it's not helping.
I'm not coming down on one side of this debate or another. I'm a skeptic, so I have to follow the evidence. Background checks would not have stopped the deaths, but background checks make sense and in this information age it would not be hard to set up a system that would allow sellers to check the background of buyers. An "assault weapons" ban would have done something, as we've had assault weapon bans in the past and they seemed to work (although in a relatively small fashion as the amount of crimes committed with such weapons has always been historically low). It's worth noting that the 1994 ban was supported by 77% of the population and the House was written to by former presidents Reagan, Carter, and Ford at the time.
It is a matter of debate though, what kind of laws should be passed and what kind of laws would be effective, and again, I'm not coming down on one side or another here. I only cite the above law and the support of it to show a historical precedent of support. What I really want to talk about is the motivation behind some of the anti-gun control measures and the conspiracy surrounding it.
After the Sandy Hook murders, Piers Morgan and Alex Jones had a gun control debate. Alex Jones, alternative medicine salesman and conspiracy theorist, is on the side of gun rights while Piers Morgan, was on the gun control side. The problem that Jones has, is that he can't just make a point and then let it lie. He doesn't know how to make a cogent argument, in one part of the exchange he begins talking about how government is responsible for more deaths in history than anything else. It's not, malaria is, but that's not the point. The point is that Jones represents a side of the gun control argument that is so steeped in conspiracy rhetoric that we have no choice but to take its seriously.
It's based on the fallacy of a false dichotomy. I should know I used to be on the conspiracist side of this argument. The world view espoused here is that owning a gun, specifically a civilian version of a military weapon is the only thing that protects our freedom. The argument is that the 2nd amendment was specifically put in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the right of citizens to revolt, and to revolt they would need guns. Thus the 2nd amendment is about the right of the individual to own whatever gun they want, including military style weapons. Now this interpretation is not something that exists prior to the 90s and didn't become a matter of law until 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller (544 US. 570) where Scalia effectively made the pronouncement with little to no judicial precedent. The last part is a legal matter, of which I'm not entirely capable of making judgment. However the attitude in the 90s I am.
The problem with this aspect of the debate is that rests on the idea that the only thing stopping the government from taking over is my ownership of an AR-15 or similar rifle. Those believing this, usually postulate their almost permanent enemy--the UN as just waiting for Americans to lose their gun rights so that the blue helmets can march in and...something. That something usually has to do with FEMA camps, brainwashing, and mass incarcerations. To what end? I've no idea, and I didn't have an idea back then either.
There are a number of problems with this. The first being that the government already has control, that's why we call it the government. It makes the laws, collects the taxes, and runs the military. What more control could "they" be seeking? Secondly, we've seen time and time again that the UN is largely an incapable military organization. They were unable to stop massacres in Africa and Europe, and in some cases have even contributed to the problems there. Thirdly, the claim is also that the UN is solely focused on the US, not Canada or Mexico but wants to conquer the middle swathe of the North American continent, that seems just impractical.
Finally it's the fantasy of it all, let's assume it is all true. Laws are passed by President Trump to remove all firearms from the American populace. Then a heavily militarized police force consisting of our friends, family members, and neighbors begins to round us all up with help from the UN expeditionary force. How is that going to play out for the average Alex Jones listener? They think that they are going to retreat into the woods with their rifle and a backpack full of supplies (of Jones's garbage nutrient supplements) and fight off the invading army. The Rambo/Die Hard/ Red Dawn scenario is just their fantasy. Here's the problem, the military has tanks, they have attack helicopters, and perhaps most importantly they have MQ-9 Reaper drones. So, unless these people are also advocating the ability of the average American to buy and possess FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles or FIM-92 Stinger missiles the argument is moot. Sure they can cite the American Revolution, which was won by armies facing off in battle; or even the Afghani war against the USSR--but in both cases the wars required foreign support and technology beyond what a few insurgents could muster up in the wilderness. This doesn't even consider just the presence of surveillance and reconnaissance packages that the mythical enemy could produce. The argument is completely implausible.
And before I get the comments: no, I'm not saying resistance against a totalitarian regime isn't worth it. What I am saying is that owning a semi-automatic AR-15 with a 45 round clip and enough attachments to reasonably describe it as a "Barbie doll gun" isn't what's stopping the government from "taking over." In order to have a reasonable and productive argument concerning gun laws we have to dispense with this portion of the debate, it's not helping.
Comments
Post a Comment