Yesterday, I debunked a Huffington Post article that claimed that the existence of a gun in an abusive relationship enabled domestic violence. In that case, as in so many others, gun control proponents used fear to sell their anti-gun rights agenda. Of course it’s also true . . .
that pro-gun rights campaigners use fear to motivate Americans to defend their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
And why not? Gun owners should be afraid of what happens to a disarmed populace. History — past and present — is littered with the lost lives and liberties of disarmed civilians.
So what’s wrong with gun rights groups and gun makers stoking public fear of criminals, crazies, terrorists and fascist politicians/government to increase both support for firearms freedom and the number of guns in civilian hands?
The antis argue (if that’s the right word) that fear leads to paranoia that leads to political extremism that leads to “lax gun laws” that leads to “gun violence.”
What’s your take? Is there “appropriate fear” and “inappropriate fear”? Politically, commercially and personally, where do you draw the line?