So much silliness in this piece by +Mel Robbins. Apparently she is a lawyer, but she does not understand...
So much silliness in this piece by +Mel Robbins.
Apparently she is a lawyer, but she does not understand the Second Amendment. That bit about a well-regulated militia does not apply to citizens, it applies to the organized militia. She thinks that all people who have guns are part of the militia, which is just wrong. That's not to say that citizen use of firearms should not be well-regulated, but that isn't what the phrase means in the Second Amendment.
Further, she claims that we do not currently have "sensible gun control." She does nothing to back up this wild claim. Worse, she claims "we now have nearly unregulated gun ownership," which is simply bizarre, since we have far more regulations on gun ownership today than we did at the end of the 18th century.
Then, she falsely asserts that guns are "the most-deadly consumer product in America" (both cars and swimming pools are significantly more deadly).
"And as of this year they killed more young people than the number that died in cars from crashes."
No, they didn't. She is simply incorrect.
And the worst part of all is that she pretends that gun violence is increasing, when it is decreasing. Consistently, and steadily. She acts like it is an epidemic that is growing out of control that we need to find someway to turn the tide on ... when, in fact, we are making significant progress nearly every year, and have been doing so for many years.
That's the nuttiest part of all. She acts as though because we have more guns and fewer restrictions, that this is causing an increase in violence, but the data shows the opposite. We have fewer deaths, fewer woundings, fewer incidents. We have less violence, while at the same time, more guns and more recognized gun rights. And in many of the states with the most guns, we have the fewest gun deaths per capita.
This means that guns are not the problem. That's the only conclusion we can reasonably draw. If guns were the problem, we would see increases in violence. We do not.
And when she talks about the violence here compared to other countries, what she doesn't do is compare non-firearm violence, where we also have more than other countries. If guns are the problem, then how does she explain that? And what happens when you compare those other countries to specific regions of the U.S., like Vermont or Wyoming vs. Illinois or Washington DC?
We know that there is a massive cultural component to violence, including gun violence. We know that there is no direct relationship between the number of guns and the level of regulation, and gun violence. These are just facts.
+Mel Robbins is providing a strong emotional case, but it is essentially devoid of reason.
Apparently she is a lawyer, but she does not understand the Second Amendment. That bit about a well-regulated militia does not apply to citizens, it applies to the organized militia. She thinks that all people who have guns are part of the militia, which is just wrong. That's not to say that citizen use of firearms should not be well-regulated, but that isn't what the phrase means in the Second Amendment.
Further, she claims that we do not currently have "sensible gun control." She does nothing to back up this wild claim. Worse, she claims "we now have nearly unregulated gun ownership," which is simply bizarre, since we have far more regulations on gun ownership today than we did at the end of the 18th century.
Then, she falsely asserts that guns are "the most-deadly consumer product in America" (both cars and swimming pools are significantly more deadly).
"And as of this year they killed more young people than the number that died in cars from crashes."
No, they didn't. She is simply incorrect.
And the worst part of all is that she pretends that gun violence is increasing, when it is decreasing. Consistently, and steadily. She acts like it is an epidemic that is growing out of control that we need to find someway to turn the tide on ... when, in fact, we are making significant progress nearly every year, and have been doing so for many years.
That's the nuttiest part of all. She acts as though because we have more guns and fewer restrictions, that this is causing an increase in violence, but the data shows the opposite. We have fewer deaths, fewer woundings, fewer incidents. We have less violence, while at the same time, more guns and more recognized gun rights. And in many of the states with the most guns, we have the fewest gun deaths per capita.
This means that guns are not the problem. That's the only conclusion we can reasonably draw. If guns were the problem, we would see increases in violence. We do not.
And when she talks about the violence here compared to other countries, what she doesn't do is compare non-firearm violence, where we also have more than other countries. If guns are the problem, then how does she explain that? And what happens when you compare those other countries to specific regions of the U.S., like Vermont or Wyoming vs. Illinois or Washington DC?
We know that there is a massive cultural component to violence, including gun violence. We know that there is no direct relationship between the number of guns and the level of regulation, and gun violence. These are just facts.
+Mel Robbins is providing a strong emotional case, but it is essentially devoid of reason.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment