On Friday I reblogged a thing about how AR-15s suck, adding:
Scrolling through my dash and I was like “Why did I reblog this?” Then I read the comments and I was like “Oh yeah.”
Fuck the NRA.
Then, some asshat reblogged me, writing this:
Why? Do you even have a reason for your unjustifiable hate for an organization that wants to protect your second amendment rights? I’m still baffled by this ignorant stance.
I got annoyed and wrote a response. It ended up being over 500 words long, so I don't want it to just die in the rapid descent of untagged content deep in the bowels of my tumblr archive. So, here it is:
Ooh, 2nd amendment arguments! I love these!
- The second amendment as it’s defended today bears little if any resemblance to the reasonably predictable outcomes of the second amendment as it was instituted in the freaking 1700’s. This isn’t about a well-armed-militia or protecting ourselves against the potentially oppressive state. This is the fact that weapons are in many ways fundamentally different from what they were, what they could possibly be, in 1787.
- The NRA routinely opposes laws and policies that have near-unanimous support of the people of the United States. They lobbied against background checks, for fuck’s sake.
- "Guns don’t kill people; people kill people" and "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" are shining examples of the full-tilt anti-complexity attitude that dominates our political dialogue, and I vehemently oppose any organization that employs these tactics any more than is strictly necessary to function in the media environment of the United States. They’re both fucking stupid arguments that over-generalize the way people behave and think — and, yeah, criminals and violent people think, they make decisions, they respond to laws in ways that are oriented towards keeping them out of fucking jail. If those changes of behavior mean they have to concede to being less likely to murder lots of people, most of them will make those changes. So, for example, if you can go to jail for just having a gun, nobody is going to use a fucking gun to rob a fucking convenience store. It wouldn’t be worth it for the majority of criminals to carry guns, and guess what? That means less death! Less death = success. A political policy need not eliminate all death, or even all death from a particular cause,to be successful. Politics (and, yeah, this includes the constitution) is basically all about damage control.
- What I just said there? About damage control? Based on their behavior, assuming the majority of the people in charge are remotely competent, it’s pretty obvious the damage the NRA is trying to control is damage to the firearms industry’s bottom line. Frankly — and, if you disagree with me on this, I don’t know what grounds we could possibly have an argument on — I think it would be better for the entire personal firearms industry to collapse, with all the lost jobs that entails, than for that industry to keep enabling widespread access to deadly weapons and a cultural atmosphere that normalizes having and using them. People being jobless is better than people being dead. Formerly rich executives being poor is better than formerly poor people being dead.
- The dialogue on gun control in the US is only one example of many dialogues in which the active refusal to consider any quantity of evidence as adequate is normal and accepted, but it is one of those dialogues, and each and every one of them is irresponsible, nihilistic and existentially threatening to the United States and its people. I hold everyone on your side of this argument personally responsible for a share of the death that your grandstanding causes.
- Fuck the NRA.
- Fuck you.