Scott Adams on gun control

[Lumpy]

Scott Adams, author of the comic strip Dilbert, has a blog where he posts his two-cents on various subjects. He leans conservative, or rather I should say anti-idiocy. Today's subject is gun control; and while Adams says that gun control has some effectiveness, he qualifies that by saying:

• He's new to the subject and admits there's a lot he doesn't know.
• He points out the flaws in gun control too.
• His arguments are rational.

All in all, I think it's worth a read.
http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/03/04/thin ... n-control/

[BigBlue]

I think he comes across as fairly pro gun control. I'd sum it up as "most gun control things work but we may have to refine them a bit".

One interesting comment was:

Gun owners say gun control doesn’t work because any law can be skirted. You can’t plug all of the holes in the system. But gun control doesn’t attempt to plug every hole. It attempts to add some useful friction in places that might improve things by 2%, for example. When it comes to life and death, small improvements count.

It's not like you can deny that what he says is true, but it misses the point. The point is that anti-gunners will always be targeting zero death and carnage and so they will ALWAYS be looking to "add some more friction". It is a never ending journey for them. And as they keep going they keep taking more and more from the law-abiding. It is very similar to the push to eliminate deaths from drunk driving. There could be just a tiny fraction of the deaths today that there were decades ago but they will never stop trying to tighten laws and get to that magical fairy dust goal of zero deaths. At some point you have to come to grips with the fact that there are diminishing returns and the extra restrictions cause more harm than the good that comes.

BB

[goett047]

Scott is an interesting case-study of a liberal diverging from leftism. He observes, adapts and learns. He’s very intelligent. It will be interesting to see where he ends up.

[Uffdaphil]

“... I would expect human psychology to favor AR-15s for any “make me famous” killings such as the recent school tragedy. I hate to say it, but a military-looking weapon is going to be more appealing, and feel more dominant, for such killers.” “...access to AR-15s raises the risk of mass shootings and the death count too. No one can estimate how much of a real difference it would make. My best guess is “some,” but a small improvement might be enough to matter.”
-So ban the most popular and most most effective long gun for securing a free state because of looks. Sounds just like the typical gun grabber argument.

“The NRA opposes universal background checks for gun purchases because it creates a list of gun owners that would be useful for a government that might want to later confiscate guns.” “If you subscribe to Guns & Ammo magazine, or visit gun websites, or say pro-gun things on social media, that’s discoverable too. So 98% (just a guess) of gun owners are already discoverable by the government.‘
-False argument. It is a list of guns owned, not of gun owners, that is the threat to liberty.

“...the high-velocity rounds of an AR-15 will explode organs and make wounds unsurvivable, whereas the typical lower-velocity handgun wounds often leave cleaner holes that can be less lethal.” Apples and oranges. Of course handguns are less lethal. Compare the AR-15 to other semi-automatic rifle calibers. And don’t use hysterical terms like exploding organs.

A $10,000 fine for private seller if gun used in crime by buyer? Yeah, that is resonable and common sense. How much should the fine be if I gift someone a bottle of scotch and he chugs it down and kills someone driving drunk?

Scott Adams usually comes across as a smart guy, but “What follows is my public confession of ignorance on the topic.“ is the wisest part of this essay.

[Lumpy]

On the other hand, he says:

The obvious correlation here is that liberals vote for gun control no matter how many or how few problems the state experiences.

Gun ownership is a safeguard against the government turning on citizens. While the professional military will always have overwhelming firepower compared to citizens, private guns would instantly be turned on the unprotected assets and family members of anyone involved in a coup attempt. That’s a safeguard

Politicians and citizens often refer to AR-15 rifles as assault weapons, or assault rifles. But a more accurate description, by far, would be “defensive weapon.” I would imagine that for every 10,000 AR-15 sales, perhaps one nut is buying for actual assault purposes. The rest are for sport shooting and defense. Words matter in political conversations.