Why Nearly All of America’s 400 Million Guns Have Got To Go: A Brief Response to Russ Baker
BY Herschel Smith
1 year ago
Let’s face it: Many armed Americans are deathly — and irrationally — afraid of others. And so they have become a menace to the rest of us.
According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, as many as 88 percent of gun owners are apparently terrified of being harmed, since they say the guns are for self-defense.
His link is used to justify his assertion that gun owners are “apparently terrified of being harmed,” but the link doesn’t say anything of the sort. The link is a rundown of how many weapons have been purchased for self defense. He just inferred that last overly-emotional part. Normally, good writers don’t do things like that. I’d probably respond that gun owners are the least scared of all home owners, given that they have means of self defense.
Yet very, very few gun owners end up defending themselves and their families from the sort of random crime they fear. According to The Trace, fewer than 3 percent of gun owners ever use a weapon in self-defense, and apparently some of those involve misrepresentation of what actually happened in order to paint the shooter in a good light.
Of course, the media — especially, but certainly not only, the likes of Fox — have played a large role in convincing an element of our society that they are in constant mortal danger. It’s totally false, but if all you do all day is consume random horror stories, your grip on reality becomes distorted. That is one reason for the current insanity, and we in the media need to acknowledge that and fight against it.
And of course the GOP probably would not hold any significant power in this country if they did not psychologically terrorize their base.
That metric doesn’t include harm that didn’t obtain because of the very fact that the potential victim had a weapon. But it doesn’t matter. Would it make any difference if the value was in reality 0.00005%? Does Mr. Russ Baker have health insurance? If so, why? Does he have life insurance? If so, why? Does he have fire insurance? If so, why?
He’s got it all wrong on the GOP, whose hold on power in Washington, along with the democrats, constituting the uniparty, is the subject of loathing and hatred among most conservative voters who believe they are cowards and sellouts. He imagines that conservatives are led by leaders who tell them what to think, sort of like collectivist voters.
Just to round out the most recent toll, we had a shooting in North Carolina. Some children were playing in the street when their basketball rolled into a man’s yard. When they tried to retrieve the ball, a 24-year-old man went into his house, got his gun and came out firing indiscriminately at various people, wounding some only slightly, but a father and his six-year-old daughter were seriously injured. The shooter ran away and is being sought. And two teenage cheerleaders were shot when one accidentally tried to open the door of the wrong car in a Texas parking lot.
With such horrific assaults, our entire society is endangered — as is our mental wellbeing.
The other day, I was speaking with a doctor — Black, as that seems to matter to gun owners, many of whom apparently have a statistically unrealistic fear of Black people coming to harm them — and she said to me, “I can’t believe that the only solution is to train our kids like they’re going to die — which causes anxiety and depression.” She mentioned the incalculable toll on upcoming generations, who are basically told to prepare for gun violence at any time.
The racial component is undeniable, although gun violence affects all races as both perpetrators and victims. In the Kansas City incident, the shooter was white, and the victim was Black. In upstate New York, both the shooter and the victims were white. In the Texas parking lot, the shooter was Hispanic, the victims, white. In North Carolina, the shooter was Black, the victims, white.
Meanwhile, one of our editors at WhoWhatWhy said he loves to swim but goes to the neighborhood pool with what he knows is a statistically irrational concern that it might be the next “cool” target. He wanted to write about the psychology of his fear of an unlikely event with catastrophic consequences, but is concerned that it might “inspire” someone to target a pool.
What?
That’s one oddball string of words. The shooter in N.C. was black, shooting a white kid for retrieving a ball in his yard. But this example leads into a yelling session how race matters mostly to white people, I think. And then tells me that I should care about his doctor being black. Why I should care about him or his doctor is quite beyond me.
I simply cannot parse the word salad well enough to offer intelligent commentary, especially on the last paragraph. But I leave it to you to ask the question, “Was this writer drinking when he wrote this?” This is some of the most stilted, horrible writing I’ve ever witnessed.
We all feel this mounting dread, yet the Republican Party keeps making it easier for people to buy deadly weaponry, and the Democratic Party and many gun reform advocates still propose only marginally ameliorative measures, like more effective registration and so forth.
How on earth is the republican party making it easier for people to buy deadly weaponry? Tell me one thing they’ve done for the second amendment in the last forty years? Is hearing protection like suppressors off the NFA? Nope. Have they been true to their calling and appointed only judges who honor the second amendment? Nope.
I think what Mr. Baker probably should have meant is that the supreme court is increasingly siding with the founders in Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen (I know, they waffled on a number of things, but they’re gradually coming around, and eventually we may rid ourselves of the “common use” test and replace it with outright respect for the 2A). So Mr. Baker might have pointed the finger at the founders, knowing that the supreme court would strike down most or all of the gun control measures he wants to see passed. Surely he isn’t stupid enough to believe that if Congress passes an AWB, it would stand when the supreme court hears it? There are some 30 – 40 million ARs in use for lawful purposes. Under Heller, if a firearm is in common use for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned. Heller dealt with the keeping part of the RKBA, Bruen dealt with the bearing part of RKBA. Full stop. End of discussion. I’d call 40 million common use.
Why is he looking to mankind as his savior anyway? And the worst of the worst of the dregs of society at that, i.e., beltway politicians. What sort of sad existence obtains in life when a man has to turn to other men as his savior? What sort of dark clouds engulf a man who believes that a body of pit vipers, gargoyles and demons will save him? From what does he need to be saved? Has he given that question much thought?
If others won’t say it, I will: We do not need 400 million guns in our society — and there are very strong reasons to get rid of almost all of them. None will actually defend us against our military or other militaries. Guns in the hands of untrained, unvetted, potentially irresponsible users do much more harm than good. Period
[ … ]
Obviously, law enforcement, the US military, and members of those “well-regulated” militias would be exempted.
We could start with something like this: Civilians have three months to surrender (for generous buyback with full amnesty) every assault weapon (AR-15, AK-47, Kalashnikov, etc.) in their possession. After that, anyone convicted of possession receives a mandatory sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
So there you go. Mr. Baker isn’t against guns. He’s very much in favor of guns – just not in your hands. He advocates that government have a monopoly on power. But he ignores that in the twentieth century alone, mass shootings at the hands of the state have caused at least 170 millions deaths. Or maybe he doesn’t really ignore it. Maybe Mr. Baker is okay with mass deaths as long as it is all inflicted by agents of the state. Perhaps he even prefers to see mass shootings as long as they are approved by the very people who stand to benefit from those shootings by the concentration of power in a single body of horrible people.
As to that little thing about “None will actually defend us against our military or other militaries,” that’s amusing. Try telling that to the guys who fought and lost in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the last example where goat herders ran the most powerful country on earth out of their land – not once, but twice, once with the Soviet Union and then with the U.S.
He isn’t interested in the second amendment because he doesn’t see the constitution as a covenant between men, with blessings for obedience and curses for breakage.
He may find out soon enough though.
I assume Mr. Baker will be among that crowd that confiscates all of those ARs and AKs? Have you volunteered to lead the stack into the first house, Russ? Or, like a coward, are you volunteering others to do this dirty work for you?
On April 25, 2023 at 12:16 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Mr. Baker isn’t against guns. He’s very much in favor of guns – just not in your hands. He advocates that government have a monopoly on power. But he ignores that in the twentieth century alone, mass shootings at the hands of the state have caused at least 170 millions deaths.”
It is important to understand that the figure above, one-hundred seventy million – as large as it is, may be an estimate on the low side. Scholars who specialize in the study of genocide, democide and mass death use different criteria by which to classify and sort the raw data.
In addition to that, the primary source material – i.e., the official records, forensic data, death certificates, registered graveyards, etc. – may be in error or skewed in some way. Or missing entirely. Earlier in the 20th century, record-keeping in some parts of the world was primitive, incomplete or even non-existent. Some parts of the world did not even accurately record births and deaths in peacetime, let alone during social upheaval or war or similar circumstances.
The late Iris Chang, whose grandparents survived the Rape of Nanking in China in 1937-1938, and who wrote an award-winning history of that horrific event, entitled “The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War Two,” once commented, “Atrocities tend to occur in pairs… first the actual atrocity, then the cover-up…”
She was making reference to the fact that governments and regimes who commit genocide often go to great lengths to hide the evidence of their actions. Or, having failed to cover up the evil act, deny that it even took place at all. The present-day government of Turkey still refuses to admit to Ottoman Empire’s extermination of more than a million Greek and Armenian Christians during the period 1915-1921. On fact, claiming that the event occurred is considered a crime.
And even in the modern world, it is often very difficult to get precise, accurate figures on those killed in conflicts. Most modern people are at least somewhat familiar with the 1990s war in the Sudan and the subsequent genocide in the western or Darfur region of that nation. Yet, since record-keeping is spotty in many parts of Africa, it is not possible to give a precise value to the number of lives lost, only an estimated range of casualties.
On April 25, 2023 at 12:30 am, Herschel Smith said:
Or for example the extermination of the Christians in Uganda under Idi Amin. Record keeping will always probably underestimate that toll.
On April 25, 2023 at 6:26 am, Latigo Morgan said:
“Hah! Hah! You have guns, you must be scared!”
Why would I be scared of anything? I have guns.
On April 25, 2023 at 6:30 am, Wes said:
I’m at once surprised, and impressed, that you spent so many words to address that slitherer’s drivel. I commend your patience. :)
On April 25, 2023 at 7:51 am, Frank Clarke said:
“First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” ——L. Neil Smith, Letter To A Liberal Colleague
By the way… 170 million dead at government hands in the 20th century is only 3.2 deaths per minute… every minute for a hundred years.
Another thing that he gets wrong is the geographical distribution of gun violence in America. Within this country’s nearly 4 million square miles, virtually ALL “gun violence” happens within the about 400 square miles represented by the inner cities of only about two dozen of our major cities, and almost all of it is drug-fueled gang violence, primarily black-on-black. Were these enclaves excluded from America’s gun violence statistics, we would rank among the safest places on Earth. Put another way, if you stay out of places like that, then you ARE living in the safest place on Earth.
Perhaps not coincidentally, those 2-dozen-or-so cities are and have been run for decades by Democrat mayors, city councils, and other functionaries. A better reason to steer clear of them I cannot envision.
Most “reasonable gun control” schemes aim to move the entire country in the direction of Baltimore MD. Statistically, it is more dangerous to have a Baltimore address than it is to be a uniformed policeman. Since I can’t imagine any thinking person advocating putting the entire citizenry in such a position, I am forced to conclude that anyone who does advocate such is not a thinking person. Either that or they just like to read lurid headlines and don’t care how many of their fellow citizens have to die to get them their ‘fix’.
On April 25, 2023 at 9:06 am, Carlos the Jackal said:
“Many armed Americans are deathly — and irrationally — afraid of others. And so they have become a menace to the rest of us.”
Irrationally?
Only at the present time; but the direction things are heading, what’s irrational now may very well soon be otherwise.
One missed EBT payment ought to do it.
Keeping my guns, motherfuckers. Defense of home & hearth is an American tradition I will keep until I stop breathing.
On April 25, 2023 at 4:18 pm, Ned said:
“Many armed Americans are deathly — and irrationally — afraid of others. And so they have become a menace to the rest of us.”
So we’ re planning to come and take your guns and, if you’re not killed, you get “20 years in federal prison.”
So don’t be irrationally afraid. Be rationally afraid.
On April 26, 2023 at 1:31 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Mr. Baker seems inclined to speak to medical people…. maybe he ought to consult a psychiatrist about his irrational fear of guns or hoplophobia. A pro-2A physician, that is, if he can find one. In other words, gun owners aren’t the problem; Baker is the one with the problem. He fears inanimate objects. He ought to get help.
On April 26, 2023 at 3:14 pm, Jack Crabb said:
My TLDR version:
Russ Baker, go fuck yourself you fucking idiot.
(Again, I apologize for the vernacular, Herschel. I’ve just had it with leftists that are unable to use reason and logic and also resort to horrible writing and blatant lies.)