Don’t fall for gun lobbyists’ use of fear to arm citizens
GUNS, guns, guns. After every mass-murder, terrorist attack or family massacre, the debate over Australia’s gun laws pops up.
Interestingly the link between two articles in the Gold Coast Bulletin of March 30 was timely.
In her article “Conspiring to drive us to madness” Ann Wasson Moore highlighted the psychology behind conspiracy theorists and in the letters to the editor, Peter Campion in “Don’t let heart rule head when debating gun control”used some pretty imaginative arguments and theories to support the need for lesser gun control in Australia.
To the anti-vaccination logic of a few having adverse reactions is reason for the many not to be vaccinated, Wason Moore states: “I take such umbrage at ‘truthers’ precisely because their lies are so damaging, utterly disrespectful to the actual truth and reflect an inner world that is malevolently dark and pessimistic.”
In his letter, Mr Campion seems to imply that had something like the US Second Amendment existed in Australia, civilians would have been armed and they could have prevented the Port Arthur shootings.
Pulling out the over-used and illogical arguments of the gun lobby, we are reminded of knife attacks and perhaps more ridiculously a truck attack in France. Again trying to get us to believe that had some person been armed they could have shot the driver and prevented the killings.
Pointing out that “easy to drive automatically geared trucks are everywhere, that are not banned,” and perhaps we should all be concerned for our safety.
In case the pro-gun parties haven’t noticed the difference, trucks are not designed to be used to kill things. And while a kitchen knife can be used to inflict injuries, rarely are they used in any “mass-killings” by a steak-knifewielding criminal requiring someone to blast away at them.
Well, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was written in 1791 at a time when there were no police departments, no National Guard, hardly a large Federal Army protecting the citizenry of the new nation from potential threats. The local civilian militias were the most responsible group for providing this and as such needed to be able to be armed. This is the intention of the Amendment and few if any of the reasons for it exist in either America or Australia today.
Most of these pro-gun arguments fall into the category of the “bullshit receptivity” personality trait identified by Associate Professor Joshua Hart of Union College highlighted in Wason Moore’s article. The thought that just because they are law-abiding, individuals should therefore able to be armed to protect themselves from all of the real and imagined threats out there, is dangerous.
“Why do western governments not trust the great majority of law-abiding citizens?” They do. That’s why they’re called “lawabiding.” The government trusts them to not become self-appointed vigilantes, armed to the teeth wandering the streets looking for someone to shoot, resulting in random “friendly-fire” casualties.
They also understand that the average law-abiding citizen isn’t trained to determine a real threat or danger from an imagined one and just as important, that most crimes aren’t sufferable with serious bodily harm or a death penalty as the result of being shot.
Thankfully, Australia does not have a Second Amendment-type law. In America the intransigent flat-earthers, so full of hate and fear, are totally incapable of accepting any alternative view when it comes to gun laws. I hear the “I’m fearful, I should be armed” schizotypic conspiracy theories about radicalised neighbours, alien invasions, environmental laws, government takeovers and the dangers of increased weapon control all of the time. Please let don’t let our politicians fall for this “bullshit”.
G.L.GERHARDT, CARRARA