Friday, December 22, 2006

Hoppe Knows Best?

Whenever a society is ill or has problems, you will always see the Leftists scurry out of the woodwork with a variety of plans to "fix" things. It's not so much just the hard Left, opinions are like, well, you know. We all have them. I have a blog full of them. The difference between the majority of people with opinions on how to fix society's problems and liberals or hard-core Leftists is that Leftists plans inevitably involve collecting more taxes to spend more money through government to solve the problem (which has never worked) or restricting certain freedoms that "Americans can no longer afford".

Those are possibly the two most common themes of the American Left these days. In central Indiana the mayor of Indianapolis, Bart Peterson, decided that one of the main reasons Indianapolis is having a bumper crop of murders this year is violent video games. Even more amusing, David Hoppe of the local lefty rag NUVO believes the mayor is a bit of a retard to believe so, despite agreeing that violent video games might be a symptom of a sick culture, by going the extra mile and saying it's not the games, it's the GUNS!

But before I get too off-topic, let's look at Mayor Bart. The Mayor, now president of the National League of Cities, is resurrecting an idea that he had and that was shot down by the City County Council in his first term. He thinks restricting or banning coin-operated violent video games might make a big difference in the criminal behavior of Indy's youths. Well, having been a youth and known even more, I'm here to tell you that that plan is about as brilliant as a lobotomized earth worm. Not a lot of grey matter in it.

I actually agree with Hoppe that overall things like violent video games are a symptom of the fact that our culture has turned overly sick and dysfunctional in the last four decades or so and that the likelihood is that if you took away the underlying influences for that ailment, you might actually stop things like violent video games and the like because they would no longer reflect society. Attempting to ban them is a knee-jerk reaction to a very serious problem and one that doesn't even come close to hitting the mark. His attempt reminds me of Tipper Gore's campaign against raunchy rock music lyrics.

I'm sure that Hoppe's and my opinions differ on what has caused this societal breakdown. He would likely say that we haven't done enough for the poor or the homeless, despite funding a trillion dollar "War on Poverty" with LBJ's Great Society for the last forty years. That's just not enough. For a socialist, it never is. I'm sure he believes if we gave these people decent houses, fixed the problem neighborhood's infrastructure, put more money into schools and scholarships and gave these kids better or guaranteed job opportunities when they got out of school, violence would shrink away. It's a very Marxist view. Notice also, it would require a lot of our tax money to accomplish with no guarantee that it would work. Hasn't worked yet and we already do all of the above to some extent.

Hoppe could debate me on the above points, but I think he'd agree that deep down he favors most of the above programs to help things out. That wasn't the topic of the rest of his article. The rest of it was gun control. See, more of your money or less of your freedom is the only way his world is gonna get fixed. Now, he does try to assuage the fears of the average NUVO reader and gun owner (of which, I'm guessing, there are but a paltry few).

If you think that I want to try and take your guns away, forget it. This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. But that right has nothing to do with providing a gun to anybody who wants one, whenever they want it, in any number they choose.

Actually, saying that a gun shouldn't be provided to anyone that wants one is a "right to bear arms" issue. Who decides who gets one, Dave? You? People who share your values? How do you choose? We already restrict minors, felons, people with restraining orders against them and the mentally ill from getting them. Who else do you think, in your anointed state of champion of the people, should not be allowed to have one just if they want, whenever they want and in any number they choose? Your elitist snobbery really shows through in that paragraph.

Indiana, for example, does not have a one-handgun-per-month limit on gun sales. We have no limitations on assault weapons and magazines. Our police cannot limit the carrying of concealed handguns. Minors here are not restricted from possessing guns and no license or permit is required to buy a handgun. There is no waiting period on gun sales, no requirement that all guns be registered with law enforcement, no background checks required at gun shows or on private gun sales.

No, Indiana doesn't have those ridiculous laws, and the CDC, one of the most virulently anti-gun agencies in the federal government, has a fairly recent study that says NONE of those laws has any noticeable effect on gun crime. And all registration does is set a people up for confiscation. If you don't believe me, ask the former gun owners of many major metropolitan U.S. cities as well as citizens of Canada, Great Britain and Australia. Confiscation of their firearms was made easy because the police knew who had what. It's also resulted in the greatest crime waves any of those countries has ever seen. Really progressive, eh Dave?

and the tired old line...

In Indiana it's easier to get your hands on a gun than a driver's license.

Well, looking plainly at this statement, no it's not. You have to be at least 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a pistol, and you can get a driver's license at 15 with restrictions in this state. You have to fill out extensive forms and if you want to carry your sidearm you have to be fingerprinted and go through a background check to get a permit to carry (which can take a few weeks to process). Having experienced both, I can tell you getting my license was monumentally easier. I took a dinky written test and then a short drive with a very nice man with a clipboard who directed me what streets to drive on, then told me to go get my photo for my license and congratulations. The people who did my background checks, with some exceptions, were nowhere near as cordial or as quick. Here, Hoppe suffers mostly from ignorance of the process, an affliction common among pseudo-intellectual liberals.

Of course, Dave Hoppe may already know all this and just have chosen to willfully misinform his readers just to make his case. That often happens when one starts with an opinion and needs to mold the facts to fit it. It happens every day with junk science and just as often in junk punditry.

If you're interested in writing Mr. Hoppe a note challenging or countering any of his ivory tower assumptions about gun control, make sure to be well-informed before you do. Sites like GunCite will provide you with considerable ammunition for your argument. Good luck to you and the next time you're at a gun show or in a gun store buying more than one handgun a month, an assault weapon, or a myriad of firearms, think of Dave and buy some more.


Post a Comment

<< Home