From the get-go, a Redstate diary entitled Living in a Free and Dangerous Country is Better than Living in a Restricted and “Safe” Country begins badly by positing a false dichotomy. There are many alternatives between the two poles of the diary title. Then unable to let a cheap potshot go to waste, the diary continues
Democrats — never ones to let a tragedy go to waste — immediately began pushing the gun control narrative before the bodies were cold….
They’ll stand on the graves of the slain, wheel out the family members of victims willing to cooperate with their narrative, and talk about how their woke kids are asking poignant questions about today’s society.
Those who resist the mob in order to keep their freedom will be accused of having the blood of the innocents on their hands. They will make super-villains out of anyone who speaks against the buzzword of “common sense” reforms or gun laws.
The idea that exploring the theme of the delicate balance between freedom and security could be explored without first aggravating acrimonious partisan tribalism did even occur to the diarist. Besides, he might lose his street cred at Redstate if he refrains from poking sticks at Democrats.
Then the diarist begins to speak for all Americans.
We cherish free will and liberty over restriction and regulation.
We do this in full understanding that freedom comes with risks, and no guarantees.
Okay fair enough. But then he loses his point with examples so far removed from guns as to be pointless.
We want to be able to buy that sugary drink because we want to enjoy a treat, or smoke that cigarette because we want to relax, knowing that it’s not good for us, but are willing to accept the consequences anyway. It’s our right to do so.
Well, yeah, but your sugary drinks or cigarettes may land you in the hospital, but they are unlikely to do the same for me.
We want to allow our kids to explore the neighborhood freely, and gain a sense of independence and life experience, knowing full well that there are those out there who would do them harm.
Now the diarist is no longer speaking for everybody. When I was a kid, I could explore play all over my neighborhood safely. Plenty of parents with childhood experiences like mine recognize that now is not then. I might get injured (and did) scamping about the neighborhood, but no person was likely to do me any harm. The risks are far greater today and therefore many parents will not let their kids play outside the yard unsupervised. Whether some segments of the population consider these precautions as over-protective is beside the point.
Then he makes an assertion that, if you put to them in these words, might give even Republicans pause.
We accept that people, maybe me, maybe you, maybe someone we love, will die.
But we accept these freedoms because we know the benefits of freedom vastly outweigh the dangers.
It is false that risk of death by gun is a price of freedom. It is completely possible to enact reasonable gun safety laws without compromising the second amendment freedom. I have seen several suggestions worth discussing.
1) Eliminate the gun show and private sale exemption to background checks.
2) Require registration of every firearm, training certification, and insurance.
3) Outlaw military weapons.
4) Set limits to number of firearms. Nobody needs 42 guns.
Then the diarist cites a couple statistics:
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.
This could a correlation without causation. Perhaps 98.4 percent of the daily environments we find ourselves are gun-free anyway. Besides, a lot of people at the Las Vegas concert had guns---totally useless guns.
TSA is useless when it comes to saving us from terrorists with a 95 percent failure rate.
The phrasing of the assertion gives the impression that foreign terrorists have been getting through TSA screens with abandon. The link actually refers to tests at one airport conducted on two separate occasions. I agree the failure rate at the Minneapolis airport is reason for concern, but it is not clear whether those results can be extrapolated to all airports. The last time there was an incident at an airport, the shooter used a weapon he retrieved from his checked baggage after landing. Most airport incidents occur before completing a TSA inspection. Therefore, a number of airports now inspect you as you enter the terminal. Onboard incidents generally involve unruly passengers or overzealous crew, NOT dangerous contraband TSA missed.
Then the diarist asserts
Freedom is dangerous, but the solution of regulation and restriction are far worse. Any resident within a communist or socialist country, both past and present, can tell you that.
The assertion completely ignores the opinions of residents who are happy with the gun regulation in the their countries.
Then he creates and debunks his own strawman.
If you’re looking for a magical solution that gives you total safety, you’re in the wrong reality.
Finally, he says something we can all agree with.
Banning guns, or making them harder to get legally will not stop events like the Las Vegas shooting, or the Pulse Nightclub shooting, or Sandy Hook, or San Bernardino. It’ll only make those who wish to do harm seek alternative ways of hurting people.
Exactly. Those alternative ways kill and would far fewer people. The diarist concludes with a romanticized statement about life’s risks that that shows he watches entirely too much TV.
And should you or I die — as we inevitably will one day, regardless of any choices we make — at least we will have died on our feet, instead of on our knees.