Gun Control Issues - rev 3/18/10
by: Ron Drozdick (Rjdroz@MTAonline.net)
Guns
and Gun Control
Self
Protection, Bad Statistics, Kids and Guns, Assault WEAPONS, Politics,
Atrocities and Rebellion.
Fanatic : One who accepts without question any argument
or information that supports his belief and rejects as self-evidently false
anything that does not. (Quoting
Me)
This article is Copyright 2010 by the Author listed above. It may be freely distributed on the Internet in its entirety and without alteration provided that this copyright notice is not removed. It may not reside at another website without the Author's permission. Please use links.
Key Words: gun control, assault weapons, brady, statistics, attrocities
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
First a bit about myself, skip it if you want, but it should
give an idea about my objectivity or the lack there of. For the first 60 years of my life, I did
not own a gun. I do not hunt, nor
do I have any desire to do so.
I’ve never felt a strong desire to own a gun for self protection,
and the only time I felt in significant danger was when I protested a (very)
noisy party one night in my apartment complex involving people revving motor
cycles in the evening right outside.
The noise had awakened and scared my 4 month old to the point that he
was screaming. I protested mildly
and was threatened by one of the party people, drunk and edged on by
another. (The party turned out to
be pretty much composed of off-duty city police.) My parents never had any guns. My father was a soldier in WWII but
never talked about it. I did shoot
a 22 rifle at a Boy Scout camp one week, and once my father-in-law coerced me
to go on a duck hunting trip that was completely unsuccessful. When my father-in-law died, he left a
surprisingly large gun ‘collection’ to be split among his
children. Our ‘share’
included some WWI – WWII infantry weapons, and I became interested in the
history of these weapons and gun control issues.
I have found fanatics on both sides sprinkled all the way up
and down the ranks. I did find
somewhat more ‘fanatics’ in the gun–control group, (See the
above definition) possibly because they neither knew nor wanted to learn about
guns beyond listening to people with their same viewpoint. It seems a largely emotional
approach. There is plenty of
emotional approach among the anti-control people too. Regardless of my personal viewpoint,
anti-control people seem as a whole somewhat less emotional and more rational
at least as far as published information indicates. Overall, my personal research has turned
me against pro gun control as represented by the most vocal advocates. Largely because I can’t believe
anything they say.
Good or Bad?
This issue is central to gun control. Consider the standard (at least in the
past) TV family show situation. Kid
comes home from school having been in a fight. Mom say’s there is NO excuse for
violence and NEVER fight. Dad says
stand up for yourself. (Not to be sexist sometimes the roles
are reversed in the real world.)
There are problems with both positions. If you never ‘fight’ back,
the situation will likely continue to get worse since the kid will appear an
easy and safe target for abuse. The
problem can get so bad that the kid eventually commits suicide. And of course, the authorities
can’t help, since the classic bully is careful to harass people when no
one in authority can see. Often the
blame is shifted onto the victim.
The Dad’s position may actually work, but most bullies (tending to
be cowards) are careful to select targets that they feel confident they can
beat up with ease, and often travel with a backup group. If the kid fights back he could get
badly hurt.
This exactly parallels the ‘right’ to self
defense (and the defense of others who are under attack). People in favor of gun control are
generally opposed to self defense.
The idea is that if you curl up in a ball and do not resist, you are
less likely to be harmed, and of course less likely to harm your attacker. It is also assumed that it is the job of
society to protect you. In some of
the more extreme countries like
As mentioned above, gun control proponents often insist that
it is society’s responsibility to protect you. The only way ‘society’ can
protect you is by general methods to reduce the chance of attack, like more
street lights, and the threat of capture and punishment after the fact (if
caught). Society cannot protect you
from an actual attack. Strangely
enough, very few violent attacks occur when the police are watching (see bully
above). If a call for help is made,
the police will arrive after the damage has been done. At least as effective in preventing attacks
is the danger that the victim may punish the attacker right off (see bully
above).
(Did you know that in the ‘wild west’, contrary
to Hollywood’s take, there were relatively few violent crimes (at least
outside of bar fights and not involving Indian fighting) when compared to the
large U.S. city of your choice now? The career of bad guy was dangerous. Plus there was often very little in the
line of legal procedures to hide behind.)
Oh, by the way, making self defense illegal sounds good to
some people, but it does NOT decrease the chance that you will be
attacked. You HAVE made the
attacker safer and the career of the violent criminal more attractive. As an example, in
If you do defend your self by any means, you may well be
more likely to be hurt, but you may also avoid being hurt. Soooo….
As in the case of the kid being bullied in school, which way to go?
If I were to draw a conclusion I’d waffle and say it
would be situational. At times it
is better to be passive, and at times better to fight back. I would lean toward defending yourself
if it seems fairly safe or if the attack seems serious. Especially since that might discourage
the individual attacker from future attempts, and if a successful defense is
publicized, discourage others potential attackers making it safer overall for
everyone. Regardless, it should be
YOUR decision, not society’s, because society is
not there, you are.
Interestingly enough, if a brown or grizzly bear attacks,
the standard advice is to fall down and play dead. (The bear will know that you are not
dead, by the way.) That type of
bear, although irritable and powerful, is not usually especially interested in
killing you. A robber/violent
attacker may not be interested in killing you. If the smaller and
less grumpy black bear attacks, the advice changes. You are supposed to fight back as hard
as possible if the bear does not go away quickly. The black bear is more likely to think
of you as lunch, and want you dead.
In a similar fashion, the robber/violet attacker may be interested in
killing you if you can identify him.
I’m not especially concerned with the fate of the
attacker, by the way, at least while he is busy threatening or actually
attacking. The act should be made
as hazardous as possible for the bad guy.
BAD STATISTICS-Danger of a
gun at home:
There is an old, often mentioned
saying, “There are lies, damned lies and then there are
statistics”. It is easy to
misuse statics since you can never consider all aspects of what you are looking
at. As far as gun control is
concerned both sides appear to occasionally misuse statistics, which is hard
not to do. In my opinion the most
blatant misuse of statistics is to be found in the pro gun control camp
amounting to outright lies. The
anti-gun control group generally just tears the pro-gun control publicized
statistics apart. Check information
on assault WEAPONS in at least one prominent gun control site after reading
about assault weapons in a later section.
A prime example involves a commonly believed
statistic that was partially quoted on a TV show recently
(‘Medium’) when the wife, after talking to a
‘survivalist’, questions whether a gun at home might not be a good
idea after all, and the husband says something about it having been shown (statically)
that you are much more likely to be killed by a gun in your home if you have
one. I’ve since heard
it on other TV shows and in books.
That is sort of true, but only sort
of. Most of the deaths resulting
from guns in homes that have guns are suicides. Now it has NEVER been clearly shown that
the availability of guns increases the number of suicides. I suspect there are some cases where
impulse suicides may occur because of a gun being present and conveniently
available, and there are also at least as many suicides that do not occur
because guns seem so final. They
scare potential suicides off. MANY
potential suicides would rather there be a possibility that they might be
‘saved’, or survive their attempt. In fact some suicides actually attempt
it knowing that someone should be coming by shortly and may find them before
they die.
It is somewhat of a moot point as to
how you kill yourself. Unless there
is something way worse about that particular method when compared to say
jumping off a tall building, or slitting wrists, guns do not seem to represent
a real problem here.
The second most frequent death by gun
involves felons. Say one drug
dealer shooting another. I’m
not a felon, so I guess I’m pretty safe here. Also I can’t say the act is even
all that distressing. Think about
it as evolution in action.
The last significant death by gun group
involves domestic abuse. Normally
the abused female shoots the aggressive male to protect self or children. (Male abusers don’t use guns as
often since they seem to prefer a hands on
approach.) By the way, the woman
can leave, but abusive men tend to follow and kill them. The killing of an abusive husband does
not upset me all that much either.
Better the dead abuser than the dead victim.
The net result is that if you are not
suicidal, don’t live with felons, and don’t beat your wife (or
husband), the presence of guns at home has little if
any potential of increasing death by violence at home. Keeping guns away from children is, of
course important. The vast majority
of people do as is reflected by the relatively tiny number of young children
accidentally injured by guns as compared with say playing with matches or
falling in the swimming pool (recently saw that 100 child deaths a year occur due
to choking on food). See the
next section.
Certainly guns (and many other things)
are dangerous and there are preventable deaths. Oh, and by the way, lives are
saved because guns are available, even if not used. Remember the burglary issue where when
guns are common, burglars tend to avoid houses when people are home? THESE CANNOT BE USED IN STATISTICAL
EVALUATIONS SINCE YOU CAN’T CLEARLY MEASURE EVENTS THAT DO NOT OCCUR.
Beware of statistics. Anti-Gun Control people usually spend a
lot of their time tearing apart statistical arguments thrown out by Pro-Gun
Control people, largely because pro-gun control people are suckers for bad
statistics. The one of the main
reasons I can’t trust gun control activists
BAD STATISTICS- Accidental Child Death via Gun:
Another place where you can find bad
statistics relates to accidental death by gun. One source (obviously an emotional one
including lots of touching quotes that address specific cases), claims more than 500 deaths due to gun
accidents where a child is killed every year. At least that was the impression
given in the article. Another
claims death by gun is the second leading
cause of death among children. .
Statistics that were not compiled to single out gun related injuries
showing up in gun control sites (pro or con) show a different picture. One statistics states, in 2005, 75 children ages 14 and under died
from unintentional firearm-related injuries; more than half of those children
were between the ages of 10 and 14 (those early teens think they are
immortal and love to show off). To
see it in proportion, one source states Each year over 1,000
children die in swimming related accidents (mostly private pools) and over 5,000 others are hospitalized.
Additionally, spas and whirlpools kill over 200 children annually. One person used the CDC's WISQARS
(http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) application and looked at accidental death
dangers for young children, age 1 to 7, over the span 2001 to 2005; and
generated the following:
|
Cause of accidental
death |
Rate per 100,000
children age 1 to 7 |
|
Drowning |
2.0 |
|
Car accident, child
passenger in car |
1.3 to 2.2 |
|
Hit by car while
walking |
1.3 |
|
Fire (not including
house fire) |
1.2 |
|
House fire |
1.1 |
|
Suffocation |
0.6 |
|
Fall |
0.2 |
|
Bicycle |
0.1 |
|
Poison |
0.1 |
|
"Unintentional
struck by or against" |
0.1 |
|
Firearm |
0.1 |
If you want to figure out the total numbers per year, multiply
each number by 25). But the rate per 100,000 is of course more useful.
This says car related is the biggest
cause, drowning and fire next close to tied for second, firearm is roughly 5%
of drowning. And let’s ban
bicycles.
Any deaths are tragic, but accidental
death by firearm is infrequent. Roughly 1% of the total or 25 accidental firearm deaths between the
ages of 1 and 7.
In 2006, the total deaths from drowning for the same age range was 558
per the above program for the same age range. I played with the program some more and
found that accidental firearm deaths for the
The thrust of most gun control
group’s statements regarding child related deaths is to bring up a
picture of children playing with guns.
There are some, but not many deaths that fall into this category. Violence related deaths are a bad thing
too. Unfortunately, the statistics
do not break down intentional and unintentional. Or if the guns were
ones kept at home. Or if the guns were obtained illegally. Or if intentional, how many would have
occurred by other means anyway.
Statistics can easily be misused. I may have messed up myself, but I used
a site not designed to be biased toward a goal. It is EASY to believe anything you hear
if it supports your preconceived notions. Statistical information can always
be misleading. It would seem that
there are other areas worthy of extra effort that are not as
‘popular’ a cause like drowning including in hot tubs, or fire, not
to mention auto accidents.
The attention guns get tends to confirm my belief that objection to guns
is more emotional than reasonable.
In summary, use of statistics is almost
always biased toward one view point or another, but even worse, statistics are
used to support actions that usually have no impact on the statistic.
By the way, I would favor a well
publicized law that would result in say negligent homicide when a child dies because
a loaded gun is left around in a home with children without even a trigger lock
to prevent a kid form getting and using it. As well as similar
well publicized laws when a child’s death occurs from negligence
regardless of the type of accident.
Another possible law which is in part in force now, through the quick
electronic identification checks now in use, might require completion of an
appropriate gun safety course in addition to age and a clean record to further
minimize accidental child deaths.
Assault WEAPONS – Educational,
skip if you don’t want to be educated:
This section was developed in part because there are so many
terms thrown about and misused. It
is supposed to be educational and help you understand what’s what and
why. I selected this Assault
WEAOPNS because it involves so much misinformation it was hard to believe. It seems to me that prohibitive control
of these weapons is silly since they account for almost no gun related
problems. Also there were
almost no non-cosmetic characteristics that would single out Assault WEAPONS
for special treatment. First some definitions covering typical types of guns
normal members of the public might legally have as well as fully automatic
weapons that are rather heavily controlled by the federal government:
Some general terms
applying to guns as used here-in:
Now for gun capabilities.
Handguns
Revolver:
(Currently usually a double action type, shooting on every
trigger pull. See most
westerns and all old cop movies)
1 Bullet capacity, the
six shooter can hold from 5 to 9, depending on size of gun and size of
bullet.
2 Speed of fire estimated at roughly 20
shots per minute, not including reload time and assuming some attempt is made
at aiming.
3 Can use two at a time doubling the
firing rate, with decreased accuracy.
4 Generally easy to conceal so no one
knows you have it.
5 Good for use in confined places
(Indoors)
6 Reloading generally slow but devices
available that allow for somewhat faster reloading.
7
Accuracy poor at other than close range unless you are expert. Easy to miss your target if at a
distance and hit a bystander. Intended for aimed use so you have some chance of hitting your
target.
8 Damage per shot moderate.
9 Frequently used by criminals,
and as a back up weapon by police.
Semi Automatic Pistol
(Sometimes confusingly called an automatic, which it is not really. See most current cop movies in use by
cops.)
1. Bullet capacity, 10 to 16ish,
depending on size of gun and size of bullet.
2 Speed of fire estimated at 20 shots
per minute, not including reload time and assuming some attempt is made at
aiming.
3 Can use two at a time doubling the
firing rate with decreased accuracy.
4 Generally easy to conceal so no one
knows you have it.
5 Good for use in confined places
(Indoors)
6 Reloading by clip relatively fast.
7 Accuracy poor other than at close
range unless you are an expert.
Easy to miss your target if at a distance and hit a bystander. Intended for aimed
use.
8 Damage per shot moderate.
9 Very frequently used by criminals and
Police.
Long Guns
Assault RIFLE
(An official military designation.
See modern war movies, or cop movies. It’s the short rifle that sprays
bullets. In cop movies it is either
in the hands of SWAT Team members or the bad guy’s )
1
Bullet capacity 30ish, depending on gun and size of bullet.
2 Speed of fire estimated at about 600
shots per minute in full auto mode, no aiming really feasible, 20 shots per
minute in semi-auto mode, not including reload time and assuming some attempt
is made at aiming in semi-auto mode.
It generally has two ‘modes’ to allow accurate firing or
spraying of bullets.
3 Can only use one gun at a time and
have any hope of hitting anything except by accident.
4
Generally difficult to conceal.
5 Fair for use in confined places
(Indoors), not so long as to be unwieldy.
6 Reloading by clip relatively fast.
7
Accuracy good to intermediate range when aiming (semi-automatic mode). Harder to aim
accurately when in full auto mode, very likely to hit anyone in the vicinity.
8 Damage per shot moderate.
9 Standard military basic weapon
today. Occasionally used by
criminals, especially drug lord/gang types. (Always obtained illegally by criminals,
these guns are controlled strictly by federal government.)
NOTE: smaller one handed weapons
available, the Uzi of TV/Movie Fame.
Same as above, but even harder to hit anything with.
Assault WEAPON:
(A vague artificial term.) LOOKs like an Assault RIFLE. See WWII movies, it’s the small
rifle, not the ‘machine guns’ designed to be hand held like the
version of the ‘tommy gun’ Pretty much never seen in recent movies
or TV shows. These guns are often
banned for some reason, while other guns that can be more dangerous are not.)
1
Bullet capacity 30ish, depending on gun and size of bullet.
2 Speed of fire (NO full auto mode), 20
shots per minute in semi-auto not including reload time and assuming some
attempt is made at aiming.
3 Can only use one gun at a time and
have any hope of hitting anything except by accident.
4
Generally difficult to conceal.
5 Fair for use in confined places
(Indoors), not so long as to be unwieldy.
6 Reloading by clip relatively fast.
7
Accuracy good to intermediate range when aiming. Less likely to hit bystanders.
8 Damage per shot moderate, usually
banned from use as a hunting weapon for large game, because it is too likely
the animal won’t be killed outright.
9 Looks like, but not usually used by
military in preference to the assault RIFLE. Very rarely used by criminals.
Full Size Rifle, semi-automatic
(A bolt action rifle is similar, but slower shooting. Often used by hunters, See WWII movies,
it’s the full size rifle used by our troops. Did you know that all other armies
involved used slower bolt action rifles?)
1
Bullet capacity 8ish, depending on gun and size of bullet.
2 Speed of fire, 20 shots per minute in
not including reload time and assuming some attempt is made at aiming. Straight bolt action
(not semi-automatic) with magazine about half the speed.
3 Can only use one at a time and have
any hope of hitting anything except by accident.
4 Generally very difficult to conceal,
but some can be broken down into pieces that can fit in a brief case.
5 Poor for use in confined places
(Indoors), unwieldy.
6 Reloading relatively slow to faster
with clip loading.
7
Accuracy good at any range when aiming. Less likely to hit
bystanders.
8 Damage per shot high, usually used as
a hunting weapon, because of the high chance of a one shot kill at a distance
(with proper ammunition).
9 Not usually used by military any more
except for sniper use, may sometimes be used by criminals for assassinations
QUIZ #1 What gun would a criminal use?
1 Armed
robbery of a store or an individual.
Assume there may be people around and the bad guy is on foot or enters
the store on foot. He would want a
gun that would not attract attention until he was in close. What type or types of guns would you
pick?
2 A
drive-by killing. Usually by drug
or gang people wanting to kill one or more people with no time for aiming and
little care about bystanders?
3 An
assassination,
where the bad guy want to shoot from:
a. A
hidden location, at some distance from the victim.
b. In
a crowd close to the victim. (Concealment critical)
4 Massacring
innocents in a room (school, restaurant, mall or where ever) Stealth may or may
not be an issue depending on the likelihood of getting in unseen.
Did you pick an Assault WEAPON as a preferred weapon in any
case? If so I’d like to hear
your reasons.
QUIZ #2: Guns
for use in self defense. (Assuming
you think self defense is ever OK.)
1 When
away from home. Desirable
attributes:
a. Intimidate
the bad guy to avoid actually shooting (does not appear in statistics since it
is a non event.).
b. If
you must shoot, hitting the bad guy in preference to any bystanders.
c. Ease
of carry.
2 When
at home. Desirable attributes:
a. Intimidate
the bad guy to avoid actually shooting
b. If
you must shoot, hitting the bad guy in preference to any bystanders.
c. Use
in confined spaces.
There seems to be no reason to ban Assault WEAPONS over say
semi-automatic pistols or revolvers which are less accurate and, if used one in
each hand have more firepower. Of
course Assault Weapons LOOK sort of evil since they look like Assault
RIFLES. Maybe the sight of one
might be more likely to scare a criminal off, which would make them more
effective for home defense.
Did you know that one feature used at times in defining an Assault
WEAPON is if it has a bayonet mounting lug? Of course this would stop all those
non-existent deaths due to people being killed by a bayonet mounted on a
rifle. But it looks military. Some people like the idea of banning
anything that looks military.
At a MAJOR pro gun control web site they implied that you
could spray bullets from the hip (the picture created was like water out of a
hose) with an Assault WEAPON, and implied that there was no difference between
the Assault WEAPON and the Assault RIFLE.
To firm the impression up, a news guy ‘exposing’ Assault
WEAPONS showed an Assault WEAPON (limited to semi-automatic only) in hand then
cut to a scene of a similar appearing Assault RIFE (on full automatic) spraying
bullets from the hip. Never believe
the press. (Of course it MIGHT have
been an older model that could be easily converted to full automatic. That loophole was closed and per the
law, a semi-automatic that can be easily converted is illegal.
Why, you might ask, are Assault WEAPONS the subject of bans when other weapons are much more likely to be used
in criminal/violent activities are not? Easy to answer.
Because there are relatively few of them, one can ban them without loosing too
many votes, and look like you are making inroads fighting crime when you really
are not. Appearance is all. After all, when a disaster happens with
guns involved, the standard political move is to do anything that looks like
you are taking a strong stand even when the ‘stand’ would have had
no impact on the recent atrocity/crime problem. Typical political
stuff. Much cheaper than
actually doing something about the real causes of crime or violence. Like say more money into mental health
care, keeping criminals in prison (the claim that only non-violent criminals
are released is to some degree bogus), or god forbid, trying to do something
about poverty which makes crime seem like the only way out. Anything that might raise taxes is out.
Almost all gun control laws have the intent of reducing the
number of guns available, but usually have little to no impact on gun
availability to violent criminals.
Without any real question, such laws usually do make the ‘job’
of the criminal/insane person safer and more attractive. Typical example: I saw a video of a gun control open-to-the-public
meeting held in Texas. One woman
testified roughly as follows: She
was somewhat proficient with guns and had a hand gun legally in her car, but to
follow the gun control laws in effect left it there when she entered a building
to have lunch with her Mom and Dad.
A crazy person entered the restaurant and started shooting and killing
people. Her father was hit and
killed. In spite of her attempts to
get her mother to run, her mother crawled to her husband and was promptly shot
and killed by said crazy person.
She testified the she wished she had broken the law and carried her gun
into the restaurant because if she had, one or both parents might still be
alive. Remarkably few crimes are
committed by people legally carrying guns.
I believe there is a recent attempt to ban guns in Starbucks, showing a
photo of a man in one of the stores carrying a gun as justification. He did not, of course, do anything with
it. Banning guns in these locations
would make it more likely that there would be gun violence there. See atrocities below.
The fairly recent episode at Virginia Tech struck
uncomfortably close to home. I had
a niece attending there who happened to be walking by the building when it
occurred. Two things were badly
wrong:
1 A
crazy person got a gun. (Actually guns)
2 Society
set up a perfect, easily accessible shooting gallery where said crazy person
could kill as many people as he wanted to without fear of being interrupted for
a long time. And make the
headlines!
A crazy person could substitute explosives for guns, by the
way. Remember suicide bombers
too. And with all the publicity,
lots of crazy people get the appropriate role models. It’s somewhat surprising that
there are not more events since it is so easy. Providing a safe place is
paramount. Banning all guns from an
area can make it more dangerous because the bans will only be effective on
people who would not shoot up the classroom anyway. UNLESS you spend money screening
everyone entering the area, and/or provide good coverage by armed security
folk, banning guns does not make it safer.
It’s not politically correct to actually spend money on keeping a
place safe, just to take a cost free action that gives the impression that you
are working on it. See politics
above. See the under protected Mexican
border which is a dangerous place to live due to the drug traffic.
Rarely discussed when talking about gun control is that one
of the prime reasons a government usually wants to disarm all or a specific
group of citizens. The government
wants to stay the government. The
reasons given are essentially that order is good and the government is good and
will take care of you and not stated -I sure want to stay in power.
And I would hope most people realize that a
government’s business is to control, and some control is certainly
desirable. But continued increases
in control are at best questionable, since decreases in control are a
rarity. As I keep telling my son,
don’t do things you can’t undo.
Who does an office high in government attract? They will tend to be egotistical
individuals who believe they know best how to run the world and know what is
best for YOU. Unfortunately, they
are rarely right. I can’t
come up with anything the government (national or otherwise) has done a good
job with. And if what they try
fails, the normal approach is to go further in the direction that failed rather
than admit they were wrong (see gun control laws in cities with violence
problems relative to crime rates).
As probably everyone out there knows, the
Did you know that the German government just before the
Nazi’s took over instituted strong gun control? The laws were instituted to make rebellion
less likely. Didn’t
work. The stage was set to
make it easier for the Nazi’s to do things that would be harmful to
various groups with less fear, both before and after taking power. (See bully above)
A nice government now does not mean a nice one in the
future. Things change. Because
a major earthquake has not hit since I lived here does not mean it never
will. Having citizens armed just
means that the government is less likely to do something that will seriously
irritate a sizable portion of the population.
Did you know that in some areas in the South after the Civil
War blacks were essentially disarmed so they could be abused and discriminated
against more safely and effectively?
(See bully above)
If you really TRUST the government this line of thinking may
not impress you. You may think I’m paranoid. I don’t think the government is
after me now, I’d just like it to be less likely
in the future.
If you TRUST the government, just imagine someone who does
not like you sends an anonymous tip to Homeland Security (which circumvents
rights). They say that you were
seen talking to this middle-eastern type and the word bomb was overheard. You are in for a fun time. (In the past, it might have been a tip
that you were bragging about cheating on income tax. Or selling drugs out
of your home.) If you are a
suspected terrorist, you have few if any rights. That’s OK if you ARE a terrorist,
(they really should not have any rights), but this is not so good if falsely
accused. As with the IRS, you are
assumed guilty until proven innocent.
I’m fond of a line from and old song,
“But he can’t even run his
own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll
run mine, Sunshine”
SUMMARY
It is obvious
that I have found most of the arguments raised in opposition to gun ownership
by normal citizens flawed, I believe largely through a fanatical approach by
gun control advocates and activists.
Anti Gun Control people can be unreasonable, but their reality twisting is
minor. This exercise has confirmed
a long standing belief, that politics has little to do with reality, real
solutions to problems are not considered since they would usually be hard to
implement, while getting votes through smoke and mirrors dominates. Gun control folk appear dominated by
people who are fanatics as I defined before. That does not mean that all gun control
is bad. Just that the most visible
players are severely twisting reality in an attempt to make all guns
illegal. Why else harp on Assault
Weapons? I believe it’s
pushed because it is unlikely that ‘banning’ them will loose too
many votes, but also because gun control folk find them evil due to appearance,
not due to function relative to other guns. Some gun control groups are adamant
about the desire to make all guns illegal.
This hurts the cause of reasonable gun control in large part because it
generates opposition among those who don’t like the control
fanatic’s ultimate goal.
Strong opposition even to registration of guns exists because of the
fear that registration will lead to confiscation. It has happened before. It IS the intent of strong gun control
advocates.