Your whole precept is based upon the mythology that less gun ownership equals less crime; it just isn’t proven to be so. Hell, there’s not even a preponderance of evidence that it is so.
And calling people paranoid and selfish doesn’t make it so, either. And yes, I (and the other law-abiding gun owners) are the targets of the “just one more reasonable, common sense gun control law,” as the “10%” aren’t going to apply for gun licenses, the “10%” aren’t going to register their firearms, the “10%” didn’t turn in their assault weapons when they were banned, the “10%” aren’t going to put the mandatory trigger locks on their guns, and the “10%” will continue to carry concealed even after every concealed carry permit is rescinded, for your hypothetical “10%” aren’t true gun owners, they’re illegally armed criminals, who have no right to keep and bear arms.
Prove that 10% of the legally armed population is a threat to the rest of society, or drop the claim.
Your positon is stuffed with the contradiction, I might say the lie, of the anti-gun arguments:
-
Gun crime/violence is so bad, more restrictions (if not bans) are needed;
-
Guns for self/home defense is a paranoid fantasy of gun nuts.
But: If gun crime/violence is bad enough to warrant (in the minds of anti-gunners) more restrictiions, then it is certainly bad enough for the pro-gunners to warrant guns for self/home defense.
For 2003, in addition to the 16,503 Murder/Non-negligent manslaughters, there were also 93,433 Forcible Rapes, 413,402 Robberies, and 857,921 Aggravated Assaults. Property Crime came in at a whopping 10,435,523 reported incidents.
And yet anti-gunners sniff disdainfully at Gary Kleck’s estimated 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year.
I guarantee that those were committed almost entirely by the “10%” (I personally think that number to be much lower), and yet anti-gunners espouse methodology that will only be followed and obeyed by the other +90%! Even as the National Research Council has concluded that there is no evidence that any of the gun control methodologies have had any impact on gun/violent crime.
So what’s the point of enacting more gun control when it’s not even shown that the gun control we currently have has even accomplished anything? When no causal link between gun control and crime reduction can be shown to exist? When there is strong circumstantial evidence that it is just the contrary?
On the other hand, the more “derision and scorn” you heap on the normal, law-abiding gun owners of the United States, the more you link them to criminal activity and in some cases liken them to criminals, the more you classify them a “criminal enablers,” the more you identify armed criminals as “gun owners,” then the less people will listen to you when you claim we need more gun control.
Don’t believe me?
-
Check out the NRA’s enrollment figures (here’s a hint: they ain’t going down)
-
Look at what Rosie “Nobody Needs Guns Except My Armed Bodyguards” O’Donnell is doing nowadays.