I've been quite busy lately, and now with Thanksgiving and the wedding coming, I have little time to blog. So, to have some content, I thought I'd share this piece about people's beliefs on guns from author Michael Z. Williamson which I found to be pretty good. It's long, so I'll put it up in parts.

Williamson, BTW, was the one who introduced me to a writing group which helped turn my serious fiction writing skills from "abhorrent" to "tolerable"... leading me on the path to one day being "publishable." Also, he's sending me a copy of The Weapon, his first solo effort published in hardcover, and I like free stuff.

* * * *

AMAZING BELIEFS PART 1

That incidents where people shoot criminals in self defense are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to own guns, just as incidents where presidential press secretaries are shot are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to ban guns.

That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn’t the person involved.

That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won’t harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.

That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.

That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because “Violence never settles anything.”

That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.

That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.

That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.

That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.

That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.

That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to “trained professionals.”

That such “trained professionals” will only be available on one flight in five.

That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.

That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.

That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.

That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.

That the press reporting a shooting is “responsible,” but failing to report that the shooter was stopped by an armed citizen is an attempt to prevent the “glamorization of guns.”

That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

That “assault weapons” are “very powerful” but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.

That assault rifles are "underpowered" for hunting, but can "punch through police body armor." More powerful hunting rifles, however, cannot.

That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can’t use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.

That we don’t need the Second Amendment or arms to protect our Constitution, but should instead use the courts and the government system, just as we did in 1776.

That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn’t own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.

That this alleged lack of ownership is as relevant to the Second Amendment as the lack of interest in newspapers at the time was relevant to the First Amendment.

That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but “gun nuts” are “obsessed with violence.”

That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against “types” of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the “obsessiveness” of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.

That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.

That according to investigative reports, alarm systems are expensive, often easily defeated, and the alarm company may not respond for three hours, even then only driving by rather than stopping, but an alarm system is a more reliable means of protecting the home than a firearm.

That less guns in an altercation is a good thing, so you should not be armed against a criminal to keep yourself safe.

That rather than spend a few hundred dollars on a firearm and an afternoon learning how to use it, one should instead spend thousands of dollars and several years learning a martial art, so you’ll be well-prepared to fight anyone, as long as they’re in your gender division and weight class.

That it’s terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.

That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.

That because of the bombing at Oklahoma City and the knife-point hijacking on September 11, we should take guns away from people who weren’t involved.

That a police officer under 21 shouldn’t be able to buy a gun for off duty use, because his competence depends on that blue jacket.

That people buy guns as “substitute penises,” because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.

That Hitler and Stalin didn’t disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other “undesirables.” (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting www.potomac-inc.org)

That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the “legitimate fears” they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I’m beginning to wonder.)

That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren’t allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.

That it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is owning a gun.

That a law that allows someone to keep doing “X” that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can’t do “Y”, is a “loophole.”

That it’s wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn’t need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.

That when someone dies because they couldn’t get a drug the government won’t approve, it’s tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn’t defend themselves with a gun the government won’t approve, that’s just life.

That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don’t.

That guns are a symbol of white male oppression, and we should address this by banning inexpensive guns that are available to poor minorities, guns with less than 6 lbs trigger pull which are useable by females and smaller men, require special storage and licensing fees to stop “those people” from affording them, require proof of “need” such as political connections or large acreage or the money to go on expensive safaris, and all this will stop those evil white males.

That governments should maintain the “legitimate monopoly of force,” because the American Revolutionaries, the Maquissards, the Israelis in Palestine and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan were “illegitimate,” but Hitler, Mao, Pot, Mussolini and Stalin were “legitimate.”

That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.

That .50 caliber rifles are both “very rare” and “selling like hotcakes.”

That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.

That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen’s arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, “Stop! Or I’ll yell ‘stop’ again!” rather than by drawing a weapon.

That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.

That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…

That a gun is a symbolic penis…what this has to do with defending one’s life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.

That if honest people give up their weapons, the criminals and dictators will give up theirs, as Chicago street gangs and Hitler have demonstrated.

That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.

* * * *

(c) 2005 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy for
non-profit use as long as proper credit is given. Please contact the
author when you do, through www.MichaelZWilliamson.com. It is prefereed
that this (c) notice be attached. For online fora that will reject
copyrighted works, please note the source in text.

• Currently 2.83/5
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

Rating: 2.8/5 (3 votes cast)

Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble It!