Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons

[grantcart]

70. You are correct, that the statistics he cited were in error.

Here are the correct statistics;

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


Now that we have corrected the statistics (maybe Jason added a zero), let's continue.

Since you selected only that one point of the tweet and none of the others, the readers will have to assume that you have no argument or facts for the rest of the tweet and simple hoped that by isolating a single factoid that you would defeat an argument that was, except for the clear statistical error (which might have been a typo) very tightly argued and well researched.

For example;

I assume that you cannot cite a similar historical source to Hamilton that is going to argue that a "well ordered Militia" is meant to cover you having the right to defend yourself in a home invasion.

I would argue that you have the right to bear arms under the same rights that women have to control their own body. Its part of a larger historical tradition in the US and falls within the concept of maximizing individual rights in the US. That doesn't mean, however, that some cities and some states don't have the right to put in reasonable controls, like prohibiting machine guns.

It probably is a right that you have, not just a second ammendment right. The fact that people who are reasonable on other issues still cling to this canard speaks to an almost religious fervor on the issue, which frankly, also undermines your other arguments in the same way that you think that Alexander's mistaken statistic appears to undermine his. People think that if they can be this mistaken and ridiculous about what a 'well ordered militia' is then how mistaken and ridiculous are they on the rest of the argument.

For whatever 'right' (and I am conceding abroader non 2nd rights do exist) you do have to responsibly own and use a firearm the following questions remain everyone agrees that the state has a reasonable right to some degree of control in either the way that it was purchased or the level of munitions that are covered.

Let's also skip a lot of time and accept the NRA's line that there are enough laws already on the books and if they were enforced the people who should not have weapons would not have them.

This is your strongest argument "its not simply an issue of the 2nd ammendment and enforcement of existing laws would achieve more than passing new laws, which if they are not enforced, would have little impact anyway".

I have the following questions;

1) What is it about your guns that impassions you to the point that you would make the ridiculous argument that (which you do) that 100,000 deaths would be significant but it is only 17,352 and therefore not significant.

2) If we accept the NRA's argument that we have enough laws and most of them are not effectively enforced (and I believe that they are probably right on this) then why do you join in such common cause with the NRA in their efforts to undermine those efforts. The restrictions that the NRA has gotten passed that restrict the government from using databases to enforce these laws reveals the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of the NRA and all those that embrace their radical agenda.

3) Does it bother you that in the midst of a terrible tragedy that you rush not to find some possible common cause with the Jason Alexander's of the world, and here I would be flattered if you would add me to that list, while still asserting your right to responsibly own your own firearm? You do realize that you are identifying yourself with some of the most reactionary forces in our country. I believe that there are Democrats who are also responsible gun owners. They may have good reasons for it. If I were Trevor Martin's parents right now I would be enrolling all of my children into gun classes and equipping them to own a firearm.

I just don't think that there are any progressive gun owners who would rush to a thread like this and hope to defeat a very sensible argument over a very obvious statistical mistype, or mistake.

How exactly does a progressive gun owner defend the NRA's successful campaign to gut the effectiveness of law enforcement to enforce reasonable laws by not allowing them to use a computer to do it?