Stealth Agencies for Gun Control

[JoeyB]

A good article by Karen DeCoster (of LewRockwell and Mises.org fame) about how government agencies have been trying to establish gun safety as a public health issue. It's quite interesting (and not surprising at all).

http://jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5546-stealth-agencies-for-gun-control

A couple quotes:

Still, the CDC has not been able to make its research work in favor of its agenda. Its own studies have not been able to link gun control laws to the reduction of crime. Nevertheless, any time the government studies "gun safety," you know that in spite of the fact that all the research in the world will not support its end goal of affirming the necessity of disarmament, the aim is to produce enough information and “expert” opinions to influence the public against gun ownership and persuade them to internalize the emotional aspect of the issue, thereby leading people to despise guns, distrust gun owners, and desire more government intervention to make gun ownership more difficult. The anti-gun movement is built on pure emotion — hating guns and being afraid of guns — so crafting a false perception among the masses through fear mongering and emotional coercion is much more crucial, and uncomplicated, than presenting a clear-cut, scientific case through the use of bona fide research studies.

For the most part, the establishment of gun safety as a public health issue is a very purposeful strategy aimed at avoiding the political reality of individual liberty and the right to defend oneself. Thus gun ownership can be viewed as a “problem” that is looked at in a collective sense, by determining the costs and benefits to the public at large, as if these considerations can possibly trump an individual’s natural right to bear arms and defend his own life.

 

[FreeWillie]

Yep my Doctor (new - first time and last time he will ever see me) asked me if I had any "firearms" in the house. I asked him if he had any female lingerie that fit him in his house. That was pretty much the end of the conversation. And while he gave me my annual physical I made sure I lectured him on just how intrusive a question that was and that it was none of his damn business. When it came time for the prostrate exam, he got even

 

[Gak44]

I am thinking that they may try to use this as some kind of excuse to deny health insurance to firearms owners. Another reason, maybe the main one they want to gain control of it.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

Good post JoeyB

We're in the process of interviewing candidates for nanny/babysitter (few hours per week, in our home, while my wife is working from her home office). Of the 4 candidates we've interviewed so far, 2 have asked if we have guns.

Neither got the job.

 

[FreeWillie]

I am thinking that they may try to use this as some kind of excuse to deny health insurance to firearms owners. Another reason, maybe the main one they want to gain control of it.

I don't think they want to gain control of health-care to impose gun restrictions. That's small potatoes compared to controlling 1/6 of the GDP. It's the massive amounts of money they will control that they salivate over. After all can anyone tell us where the TARP funds went?

 

[FreeWillie]

Good post JoeyB

We're in the process of interviewing candidates for nanny/babysitter (few hours per week, in our home, while my wife is working from her home office). Of the 4 candidates we've interviewed so far, 2 have asked if we have guns.

Neither got the job.

Did you ask them why they asked that question? They may have been "fishing" for a gun friendly work environment.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

. Of the 4 candidates we've interviewed so far, 2 have asked if we have guns.

Tell them the question is not relevant, as they will be expected to bring their own to provide for safety of your home while you are not present.

 

[wingnut]

Public Health

Based upon a previous thread, when I saw my physician, before he even had the opportunity to ask, I stated that I did not wish to have any information in my file which was not directly related to my physical condition. Yep - skipped over that question, he did. (of course, if he had asked, I would have asked him "Why, are you interested in firearms?" and directed him to an NRA hunter's safety class... )

/wingut
//New Skynyrd album is worth buying if you like Skynyrd, God, and Guns. I do, so I did.

 

[terraformer]

Yep my Doctor (new - first time and last time he will ever see me) asked me if I had any "firearms" in the house. I asked him if he had any female lingerie that fit him in his house.

You good sir will fit in fine here.

Good post JoeyB

We're in the process of interviewing candidates for nanny/babysitter (few hours per week, in our home, while my wife is working from her home office). Of the 4 candidates we've interviewed so far, 2 have asked if we have guns.

Neither got the job.

I would not have assumed those two were asking for nefarious reasons. They could have been moonies, were asking about potential hazards in the home, as someone else pointed out looking to carry themselves, any number of reasons. I would ask them why they were asking, etc.

 

[JoeyB]

Yep my Doctor (new - first time and last time he will ever see me) asked me if I had any "firearms" in the house. I asked him if he had any female lingerie that fit him in his house. That was pretty much the end of the conversation. And while he gave me my annual physical I made sure I lectured him on just how intrusive a question that was and that it was none of his damn business. When it came time for the prostrate exam, he got even

That is kind of weird, no? Why does a doctor need to ask that question? Does anyone know why they do?

Good post JoeyB

We're in the process of interviewing candidates for nanny/babysitter (few hours per week, in our home, while my wife is working from her home office). Of the 4 candidates we've interviewed so far, 2 have asked if we have guns.

Neither got the job.

Thanks Kilgore!

I second FreeWillie above, do you think they were asking because they were pro-gun? Do you think it makes sense for them to ask, just in case an issue ever arises with a gun, like one of your kids finding something (not saying that would ever happen, I'm sure you take all precautions)?

In regards to the OP, I like the point that DeCoster makes about anti-gun people being/becoming very emotional when confronted with issues about guns. I would not be at all surprised that anti-self defense people keep this in mind when crafting their message.

 

[cb1]

Whenever I'm talking to someone that believes guns are inherently evil I ask them what they think about police officers having guns. The usual reply is something a long the lines of "well... that's different". Of course this then leads to me pointing out that their opinion on guns depends entirely on the individual possessing them. If guns + cops = good, but guns + private citizen = bad, then it must be the citizen that is bad and not the gun. The antis usually try to argue that police are well trained, blah blah blah. However, I'm sure a lot of people here know a police officer or two that are far less competent around guns than many private citizens.

If we extend this same emotional response argument to other things, like cars, we can more easily see how stupid it becomes. Some people are good, careful drivers. Others are a danger to everyone around them. Why don't we ban cars? Because that is not a rational solution, as we need cars for many reasons. Or perhaps prescription drugs? After all, it's a bad thing to abuse pills and other medications. Again, this would not solve anything. It only places blame on the object. If we remove the object we have only removed the person's means to an end and have done nothing to deter them from seeking an alternative means to reach that same end. If we ban all guns people will resort to knives. If we ban knives people will resort to rocks. Just as if we banned cars, people would still crash their bicycles into trees.

 

[JoeyB]

Whenever I'm talking to someone that believes guns are inherently evil I ask them what they think about police officers having guns. The usual reply is something a long the lines of "well... that's different". Of course this then leads to me pointing out that their opinion on guns depends entirely on the individual possessing them. If guns + cops = good, but guns + private citizen = bad, then it must be the citizen that is bad and not the gun. The antis usually try to argue that police are well trained, blah blah blah. However, I'm sure a lot of people here know a police officer or two that are far less competent around guns than many private citizens.

You make an excellent point. Antis have this issue with being able to logically work through something. It drives me crazy!

 

[kingfisher]

Many people believe what they believe just because they are ignorant (not stupid), and I think the approach you take, cb1, is very good. It walks people through the thought process step by step. It’s educational.

Since this thread is about “Stealth Agencies for Gun Control, let’s not forget about Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). NRA members who have read the latest “American Rifleman” may have seen an article that exposes their true agenda, which is to end lawful gun ownership entirely.

Mayors of the following MA cities are members of this group: Amesbury, Boston, Brockton, Cambridge, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, Malden, New Bedford, Newburyport, Northampton, Revere, Salem, Somerville, Springfield, and Weymouth. (There could be more.)

I have an interest in voting out a particular city counselor in Lowell because he is also the mayor and is a member of MAIG. Additionally, I’ve identified one very pro 2nd Amendment candidate, named James Wojas, who will hopefully be elected on November 3rd, and then he will work to change the restrictive licensing policy there. Here’s a link to a thread with more information about that: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81283

 

[FreeWillie]

That is kind of weird, no? Why does a doctor need to ask that question? Does anyone know why they do?

Actually this started some years ago. The AMA started it based on a study done by some Harvard MD's. (Guess they didn't know the Doc that just got liberated from a funeral at MGH). They determined through their rigorous scientific investigation that people that legally owned guns are crazy and kill people and themselves. Hey it was doctors so it must be true. (/sarc) The research is not very well done in my opinion but I had no voice in the peer review. I wish doctors would just stick to healing people and stay out of areas where they have no expertise. The next time one of them asks you if you have a "gun" in the house, ask them if they know how to field strip a M16 or M4. If they say no, blow them off as idiots and ask them if they have women's lingerie in their size stashed away at their home. That usually ends the conversation.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Good post JoeyB

We're in the process of interviewing candidates for nanny/babysitter (few hours per week, in our home, while my wife is working from her home office). Of the 4 candidates we've interviewed so far, 2 have asked if we have guns.

Neither got the job.

Simple question to the Nanny would be, if they had an LTC, if so,do they need a gun to use if they need to shoot an intruder. Simple logic, a girl that has her LTC, she is most likely more responcible and of better character. Of course their are more questions involved, but leaving my kid with anyone, I would expect them to protect them as if they were their own, just as I would for them.

 

[JRyan]

That nails it right in the head. Sums up the anti long term game plan really well, and points out to us what we have to do.

I have a friend at the club in Franklin County who wants to keep reaching out to groups and folks that would not necessarily be anti's but would not really come to explore firearms/gun clubs, etc on their own. Brilliant, IMO.

We need to take to the battle to the same place the anti's are, the emotional front lines and real world interaction (they use media very well). He posts here on the rare occasion so he may elaborate, but I think he is 100% right. Too many gun owners seem stand offish and bitter (with good reason, very true) but it hurts the cause. So far he, and the club president have set up events like Roman re-enactments and primitive skills workshops as well as traditional things like turkey shoots.

I think it's a good start. It lets people wee we are not all uni-bomber types who walk around dressed like ninjas or Pa Engels just itching to shoot their dogs and family.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

The nanny candidates asked the question like this:

"You don't have any guns at home, do you?"

That phrasing of the question indicates anti to me. And neither one was hot.

 

[JoeyB]

The nanny candidates asked the question like this:

"You don't have any guns at home, do you?"

That phrasing of the question indicates anti to me. And neither one was hot.

Okay then! Good decision.

 

[FreeWillie]

And neither one was hot.

I wouldn't have hired them either!

 

[mikem317]

Link to Karen's blog: http://karendecoster.com/stealth-agencies-for-gun-control.html

 

[DoubleA]

Okay then! Good decision.

I'm guessing:

1.) Fishing, or

2.) They don't want to become the headline as the nanny that let her child play with an unsecured gun, which is retarded because I doubt she asked where is the drain cleaner, carving knife, and circular saw.