A point by point rebuttal of Tom Plate's anti-gun propoganda

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

So in other words, one isolated incident that occured 100 years ago should be the basis of public policy today?

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Apples and oranges how? Just because one asserts an opinion, such as this one, doesn't make it true. Facts to back up the argument, or an explanation at least.

Regardless, Thomas Jefferson would disagree: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." In other words, the 2nd Amendment is the safeguard that protects the other nine. Once again, apples and oranges how?

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

How is it not working? 220 years going and we're still sovereign and free. In fact, we're freer than we were at the time of the Constitution's writing - slavery has been abolished. You think John Brown would have been able to storm Harpers Ferry without guns? What about Bloody Kansas? The liberty of the slaves grew from the barrel of a gun. Without the 2nd Amendment, we may still not have the 13th.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.

What does this have to do with anything? Who is blaming Koreans? What?

This is a well-known argumentative tactic, used to over-generalize and stereotype your opponent's position to a point that it simply looks ridiculous when it really is not. Sophism at its worst.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

And terrorists didn't kill 3,000 in the World Trade Center; the planes did? I call BS here.

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

So in other words, gun-control is a divisive issue. Kind of like abortion. And legislating abortion is such a great idea, right?

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.

Not half as absurd as saying that the guy holding the gun doesn't kill people. In any case, you know what also would have greatly reduced the probability of a Virginia Tech massacre happening? Giving students and teachers guns to defend themselves against wackjobs such as Cho.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Once again, he blames guns without any facts to support his argument. I could just as easily blame the flying spaghetti monster. Further, nobody is going to declare a "war on students." That is absurd speculation; nothing more.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

If you had a gun, then you could have stopped him.

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

Doesn't relate to the topic at hand what-so-ever.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

He was probably black or Mexican. But once again, this has nothing to do with anything.

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

Here he admits that his entire crusade is based on one single incident that happened to him. NEWSFLASH: We aren't all Tom Plate. In fact, my research has revealed that 99.999999984753242 percent of the world population are, in fact, NOT Tom Plate. Citing one incident that happened to you hardly is enough to support a change in public policy that would drastically alter the lives of tens of millions of rural Americans. Try again, with some statistics next time. Oh right, you have none.

My last word is this: People such as Tom Plate have no problem banning guns since it is convenient for them. But planes also can be used as killing divices, as can knives and even forks. Should we ban those too? Plate would say no, but only because banning those things would be too much of an inconvenience for him personally. But what about the inconvenience placed on millions of rural Americans who rely on guns to FEED themselves? Or the thousands more who collect antique rifles, such as myself? Surely the government would be willing to re-imburse me? They're only worth collectively over $12,000, not to mention the sentimental value attached to such antiques that have been passed along from one generation to the next. He does not address this.

Secondly, Plate assumes that the crime rates in other countries (where they have banned guns) are lower than America's. That may be true in some cases, but certainly not all. Look at Britain! The home break-in rate is twice as high as in America! Also interesting that 53% of British burglaries occur when the home-owner is at home. Compare this figure to 13% in America. Gee, I wonder why.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixopinion.html)
Overall crime in Britain is also higher than in America, and you are six times as likely to be assaulted in London as you are in New York. (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,647991,00.html)

Plate is just yet another elitest idiot.

Original article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html