What Part of “Gun Control Doesn’t Work” Don’t Gun Control Advocates Understand? Question of the Day

The Great and Powerful Oz (courtesy youtube.com)

Common sense doesn’t equal rational analysis. So when gun control advocates call for “common sense gun control” after a firearms-related spree killing they’re channeling their inner Wizard of Oz . . .

Background checks didn’t work? The FBI failed to act on a specific, credible threat? An unarmed teacher and designated security guard confronted the killer and paid with his life, when he could have been armed and stopped the slaughter?

Pay no attention to that man behind that curtain! 

The wizard scaring the beJesus out of Dorothy and her motley crew turned out to be a blowhard and, critically, a kindly old man. The Oz behind the curtain in the real world is anything but.

I don’t believe in the Devil. But if I did, I’d say that’s the Wizard we’re talking about, and gun control advocates are doing His work.

Pay no attention to solutions that might actually stop a spree killer, or anyone else who uses a firearm to commit a crime. Arm teachers? Lock up convicted gang bangers for life? Remove dangerously crazy people from society? Launch a massive anti-suicide campaign?

No!

Ban “assault weapons,” ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and bump fire stocks! Make it hard to impossible for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Take away their guns if a spurned wife or lover says they’re dangerous. (The gun owner I mean.)

Guns are bad! Guns are the problem! Anyone who wants a gun is a problem!

The idea that greater gun control would reduce or eliminate “gun violence” is a myth spread by people who should know better or, worse, do. In a country with 300 million plus guns, in a world where cruel, crazy and evil people exist, civilian disarmament as a public safety strategy is preposterous. Why don’t the antis get that?

comments

  1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Ask a liberal about common sense voting laws like photo ID…they go bananas.
    Yet we have to show ID AND pay for a background check when we buy guns.
    Is that not akin to a poll tax for voting? Also illegal, I believe.
    Just venting.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      No, you’re not just venting – you’re pointing out a cognitive disconnection. And the answer is no, proving you are who you say you are (show ID) before voting or buying a firearm from an FFL is hardly a violation of ones civil rights.
      The source of the disconnect with gun bigots is they cannot (will not) acknowledge that a citizen could ever do anything legitimate with a gun. The moment they are forced to admit that a gun can serve the legitimate need of self-defense in the hands of a civilian, they will then be forced to admit that most civilians do not use guns for crimes. Then they will be forced to admit that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are never going to be a threat to anyone. Then finally, that they have prejudged all of us and their feelings on the subject are just plain bigotry and nothing more.
      🤠

  2. avatar Gman says:

    What part of they don’t care don’t you understand?
    It iS nothing to do with guns.

      1. avatar DesertDave says:

        That is the answer!

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    You can’t argue or logic with genocidal maniacs. The left would do anything to make the country conservativefrei.

  4. avatar Chris says:

    Because gun control is fueled by emotion as opposed to logic. Restricting gun ownership is like stopping dui’s by forbidding sober people to drive. All it does is keep honest people away, criminals and convicted felons don’t give a damn about laws. Unlike stabbings or muggings or beatings, they blame the inanimate object instead of the person’s actions. Gun violence is just a symptom of a bigger problem, you can’t outlaw craziness. Even if somebody took a pair of scissors and cut out the second amendment and banned private ownership, criminals will always find a way.

  5. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Someone recently replied to a FB comment to the effect that if there are no guns, then people won’t be shot with guns.

    Well, duh!

    But, as Thomas Sowell says, “And then what?”

    The anti-rights people can’t seem to go past the first step. They believe that: utopia will be upon us or it’s a step in the right direction or since I can’t understand why anyone would want one… or we have to do “something” (whatever that may be). All useless ideas, proven time and time again. Maybe there are fresh reserves coming up through the ranks that are true believers (like Socialism fans).

    I’m pretty puzzled.

    I just got off the phone with a member of my Reform synagogue (on the left, of course) who was asking questions to “try to better understand” the AR-15 rifle. I don’t think that I made any headway.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      As a commenter here recently pointed out, the left is all about breaking the eggs of individual rights, responsibilities, and even lives in the grand goal of the omelette of their regressive utopia. The fact that in over a century of tyranny and genocide they have yet to produce an actual utopia seems to them as a sign of justification rather than abject failure.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Revel wrote a whole book on this topic called Last Exit to Eutopia.

        It’s pretty interesting to see a European perspective on the topic of Leftism. The translation out of French isn’t perfect but damn is he scathing and some of the idiosyncrasies of French insults become rather amusing in English.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      We used to have a world without guns.

      And people were murdered with swords and axes and knives all the time, at a rate that would cause a modern commonwealther to have the vapors.

      Going back to a world without guns is going to a world where might makes right and the strong eat the weak.

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        Sian,

        “And people were murdered with swords and axes and knives…”

        Dig it. For some reason, the idea that an assailant had have a hight body count without great strength or special training makes it “different”. I can see their point even though I disagree. If _I’m_ one of the dead from a sword attack, I’m certainly not going to think as I die: “Whew, at least it wasn’t killed by a gun” 8>)

        1. avatar Special Ed says:

          They don’t want a world without guns. Our rulers will have guns.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        “If no one had guns, no one would be killed by guns.”
        Absolutely true, right up until: someone went down to the local big box store and bought some parts and made a zip gun. Even a muzzle loader is possible. Are we going to outlaw fireworks, too?
        When I explain that entire wars were fought without guns, and indeed, whole civilizations were wiped out without guns, eyes glaze over. The concept that violence without guns actually happens seems to be entirely incomprehensible.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Ask them out to the range – with a variety of guns, if you have them available.

      That’s the thing I’ve found that really breaks through – the visceral experience.

      Other than that, I commend you for your patience and effort.

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        DP,

        My range is always open, so to speak, to anyone who doesn’t want to murder me (KKK, jihadists, and Nazis need not apply).

        I don’t usually get a convert, but I feel that at least people leave with some practical knowledge and understanding.

      2. avatar Setnakhte says:

        Nice work. Evangelism isn’t easy, but it’s necessary to help change the culture.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    “Why don’t the antis get that?”

    Well, some antis are very smart and get it completely, while others are too stupid to get anything.

    Bloomberg, Soros and their political acolytes like Gavin Newsom understand completely. They have the need and the will to dominate, and our guns are in their way. They seem to believe that there is no point in having power if they can’t abuse it.

    The dizzy Hollyweird crowd don’t have the intelligence that god gave to sea turtles, which is why their pretty women and prettyboys get raped on a daily basis. Stupid is as stupid does.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The dizzy Hollyweird crowd don’t have the intelligence that god gave to sea turtles, which is why their pretty women and prettyboys get raped on a daily basis. Stupid is as stupid does.
      They sort of are the sheep in Animal Farm. Useful Idiots.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Bloomberg, Soros and their political acolytes like Gavin Newsom understand completely. They have the need and the will to dominate, and our guns are in their way. They seem to believe that there is no point in having power if they can’t abuse it.
      They want a New World Order.

  7. avatar KMc says:

    I’d like to know why Robert doesn’t believe in the Devil. Care to share?

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      He probably believes schmuck Schumer exists and that nasty pelosi exist… Same/same.

    2. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Traditionally, there is no Hell in Judaism. Without Hell, there doesn’t need to be a HNIC.

    3. avatar Texican says:

      I think many of us would like to know Robert’s views on why he doesn’t believe in the faith of his fathers. Many consider it critical to knowing God and understanding human nature. And the book of Job clearly shows that Satan exists and works to destroy Jews and Christians especially. Especially. That tidbit explains a lot about the persecuted history of the Jews. And there’s a hell, too. Created for the fallen angels but unrepentant men will end up there as well. Perhaps a QOTD on which pistol would have been best for David to use against Goliath? Another idea would be to do an article with some antis by questioning them about their beliefs regarding ridding the world of guns. Then pick up the two pieces of pipe next to them on the table and demonstrate that it is a working zip gun. Or better yet ask them to hold the two pieces of pipe while you tie your shoes or something. Get a good close up of their face when they realize they were holding a gun!

  8. avatar Chadwick says:

    Probably the whole part about CONTROL.

  9. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

  10. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    So a person known to police, the FBI, school administrators, and social services manages to get guns and shoot up a school.

    This is the government failing on multiple levels and in a spectacular way. This singular event destroys the central tenant of the political left; the state can and will take care of you.

    So expect the wailing and thrashing to be even louder than Sandy Hook.

    1. avatar Michael in AK says:

      ^^^^^
      this

  11. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Most of what liberals believe has to do with what gives them a sense of moral superiority.

    They’d feel better if there were no guns in the hands of anyone other than the police and military… so they support gun control.

    Actual results don’t matter. That’s been well proven with 50 years of welfare policy since LBJ’s “Great Society,” and the $6 trillion results of welfare. Great Society welfare has been a complete failure – but liberals still feel really good about themselves for supporting it.

    Social Security’s demographic collapse is continuing to move ahead of schedule, but liberals will not even allow discussion of changes to the system – because they feel really good about the idea of shoveling money out of young people’s pockets into the pockets of old people who are sitting on their buttocks, doing jack-all.

    You’re not going to get through to gun control advocates – because they’re emotionally invested in their position. They really, really, really want to feel good about themselves – facts be damned.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I’m friends with a lot of old people. Everytime they complain about welfare I remind them that they are on welfare.

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Reminds me of an episode of “The Simpsons”, where Grandpa Simpson is on his way to the Social Security office, complaining to his friend about all of the people on welfare. Once inside he demands “I’m old! Gimme gimme gimme!”

      2. avatar Tallman says:

        Paying into a forced retirement system (Social Security) for over 40 years and then expecting SOME return is NOT welfare….

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “welfare … financial support given to people in need.
          synonyms: social security, social assistance, benefit, public assistance”

  12. avatar rt66paul says:

    Just because I don’t have a type of rifle or hndgun and see no use for it in my life, does not make me against them, no matter what the crazies are doing with them. I have written over and over about my feelings about people that abuse the priveledges of gun ownership. 25 years ago, any open shooting area in Southern Ca had idiots bringing out household appliances, cars and propane tanks to shoot up and make huge fireballs like in the movies. They just left their trash, for someone else to worry about.
    It was not uncommon to hear someone letting loose with automatic weapons fire there and late night in the ‘hood. This was just letting steam off for many of them, but the gun owners were not practicing any real safety and people did get hit with ricochets and shot way beyond the targets.
    This is not the tool’s fault, it is the fool misusing that tool. I am sure it still happens in other areas, but here in So Ca, we have to drive a long way into another county before we can shoot legally for free. I have to blame the idiots for that. I don’t know the answer, but many shooters are not disciplined enough to follow basic safety rules.
    We must police these shooters and tell them what they are doing is not right, or else they may face similar to Ca laws themselves.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    “What Part of “Gun Control Doesn’t Work” Don’t Gun Control Advocates Understand? ”

    They understand that 100%, and they don’t care, THAT’S NOT THEIR FINAL GOAL. Like other POS communist MFs, . . .

    THEY CAN’T DO YOU-CONTROL, UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY CAN MANAGE “GUN CONTROL”.

  14. avatar Lightfoot says:

    “GUN FREE ZONES” are extremely “Target Rich Environments” even having a blaring sign out front advertising to potential “Spree Killers” that there’s NO One here on premises to Defend its occupants!

    The biggest threat is to an attacker is probably something like ONE school security officer, probably not even armed, as in the case in Florida last week.

    Rush Limbaugh did a rare, live interview on Fox News this morning, and was the only one I’ve heard in the media to acknowledge this fact.

    Certainly, Rush has very conservative views, but one thing is true. Rush isn’t beholding to anyone but himself. He’s NOT an EMPLOYEE of a Major news media outlet. Like Trump, he’s his own man.

    Whether you’re conservative, liberal or moderate, you, like Rush, I’m sure acknowledges the Florida school massacre as one that hits home with all, but the most mentally challenged in America.

    Get a life America. Why do all courthouses secure themselves with Metal Detectors & armed guards, not only at the entrances but within the courtrooms themselves?

    Why do nearly all municipal offices protect their employees behind bulletproof glass?

    It’s because Judges at all levels and most municipal politicians are so arrogant, and scared for their own lives, that they’ve taken these steps.

    So, why haven’t school districts taken these same steps? It’s because they’re autonomous governmental bodies in and of themselves, with their own “Voter Approved” funding, and their administrators, although elected by the public, keep their constituents (IE: the general public) UN – Aware of the true consequences of their agenda.

    One of the guests on Fox News this (Sunday) morning was the Superintendent of the Detroit Public School District. Along with Metal Detectors, apparently, the Detroit Public School District, has their own, autonomous POLICE Agency protecting their facilities, and the children of their voting constituents.

    Question #2) Why did 2 adult employees have to die trying to shield students from the Spree Killer in Florida last week?

    Answer) It was because the only defense they had was their own bodies, absorbing bullets from the attacker.

    Question #3) Why don’t the school administrators eliminate the so-called “GUN FREE ZONES” and allow their employees the Option to arm themselves?

    Answer) Because almost every teacher I’ve ever known in my life, has been educated in the “LIBERAL ARTS” Curriculum while obtaining their college degrees.

    As the saying goes, those who can’t DO, TEACH!

    The only EXCEPTION to this Liberal upbringing and education I’ve found is those in the Law Profession, as Attorneys and of course,,,,, JUDGES.

    Almost every one of these guys & gals was brainwashed and educated by our Liberal Arts system during their under Graduate years at our colleges.

    The difference with the Lawyers & Judges, is, that they’re smart enough to realize that they engage in a profession that has a high likely hood of attack by client or foe, with a revenge motive in mind.

    Question #4) So, what about our local state & Federal lawmakers?

    Answer) Most of them, also come from the Law Profession, and were initially educated in the LIBERAL Arts programs of our Nation’s colleges & Universities. However, being mostly smarter than most, they all subscribe to our 2nd amendment rights and probably all of them are gun owners, whether or not, they wish to admit this publicly.

    So, please, let me hear from some of you LAWMAKERS, or Politicattions here on this website about just what you think about my comments, as well as the obvious solutions to this spree killing that’s been happening in our “Target Rich” , Un Defended schools.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      There is security at courthouses because judges have often enough been the target of violence from disappointed litigants (especially divorcing parties) and from criminal defendants who are at risk of escape and/or violent assaults, necessitating armed bailiffs. It was not always so. Forty years ago, other than the bailiff or other guards for high-risk criminals, there were no door guards or metal detectors. It has nothing to do with arrogance.

      Lawyers and judges are trained, at least hopefully, to think logically, not emotionally. Analyzing any particular scenario should be a dispassionate process–no matter how passionate the lawyer may be in court in front of a jury.

  15. avatar Montesa_VR says:

    I turned on the talk radio channel on the way home from church this afternoon, and the host was interviewing Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Otto. A caller asked what law would have stopped the shooting in Florida. Her response: “that’s a line used by the NRA.”

    So in place of anything like logic, reasoning, research, she launched off into magic land. We’ll get the University of Minnesota working on it, we’ll employ common sense solutions, we can’t make our schools into a militarized zone, we need to put pressure on our legislators to ban assault rifles. She actually quoted someone telling her that nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt bears.

    It’s frightening, isn’t it? Even if she’s faking it, how can she stand letting people think she’s actually that stupid?

    And the next person that gives me that snarling “Nobody’s coming for your guns!” is getting a facefull of statistics and examples.

  16. avatar Lightfoot says:

    When is someone going to come on National News, to educate the public that the designation of “AR” has NOTHING to do with “ASSAULT RIFLE” ???

    Maybe the manufactures of these platforms should come up with a NEW designation, something like “SHR” to designate a NEW realistic meaning, like “SemiAutomic Hunting Rifle”, or even “SPR” to rename these as “SemiAutomatic Sporting Rifles”.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Maybe the manufactures of these platforms should come up with a NEW designation”

      They *have*, it’s called “Modern Sporting Rifle”, or MSR…

  17. avatar anarchyst says:

    I sent this to my local radio talk show host who has it “all wrong”…

    Hello,

    I must take issue over your conversation with your guest, and your (apparent) attitude toward an inanimate object–the AR-15. You, of all people, who I respect, should know better.

    You are sadly misinformed, calling AR-15 type rifles “high power”. AR-15 rifles are “medium power”–NOT “high power”, as you and your guest have asserted. In fact, they are not permitted to be used for deer hunting in most states. AR-15 rifles are easy to handle and shoot, have minimal recoil and are perfect home and self-defense weapons. In addition, AR-15 rifles are FUN to shoot, many people using them for target practice and other legal uses. Women find them especially attractive due to their low recoil and easy handling.

    In addition, you “fall into the trap” of demonizing the millions of AR-15 rifle owners who are law abiding citizen, and would NEVER commit any heinous act with a firearm or any other means. I, for one, do not appreciate you demonizing all AR-15 owning firearms enthusiasts for the actions of a “nut case”–yes–“nut case”–harsh words, but necessary.

    Your comment that “you don’t NEED an AR-15” falls flat on its face. There are many things that “you don’t need”, but WHO ARE YOU to determine what a person needs or wants?

    In order to “educate” you I ask you to do the following:

    Pull up a picture of an AR-15 rifle and a Ruger Mini-14. You will find that these are identical operating rifles except for “looks”. The AR-15 rifle functions exactly the same as the Ruger Mini-14–same caliber and method of operation. The AR-15 has a “scary” (to some) black appearance, while the Mini-14 has a wood stock and looks like a traditional rifle.

    I would encourage you to visit a rifle or pistol range and talk to the people there. You will not find a better bunch of people who are just as sickened by the behavior of these school shooters as anyone else. These same people would stand up for YOU, or any police officer who was threatened. Ask them to show you a AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 and make the comparison.

    Taking away the rights of honest people just because of criminal behavior is just wrong. THAT is what your guest and her ilk espouse.

    Blaming the weapon for the actions of a “nut case” is just wrong.

    I would appreciate a retraction, or at least a clarification on your stance. I don’t want to lose my trust in your objectivity, honesty and fairness.

    Regards,

    P. S. I never got a response or acknowledgement–sorta tells you their agenda…

  18. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Robert, Tucker Carlson correctly pointed out that gun-control isn’t about controlling guns at all—it’s about controlling people you don’t like. For gun-controllers, guns symbolically represent attitudes and lifestyles—largely out here in flyover country—that progressive cosmopolites who tend to live or identify with the values common in our coastal cities—absolutely hate. Guns are simply the handle, representing our different social and cultural values—on which they can hang their hatred. In truth, if guns were not associated with us, there would be no movement to control guns.

  19. avatar Slow Joe Crow says:

    Gun control is like communism, it cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Gun control is communism

  20. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Blame it on the poppies poppies 🙂

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    What Part of “Gun Control Doesn’t Work” Don’t Gun Control Advocates Understand?
    Gun Control works very well for dictatorships and the Liberals know that very well.

  22. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I’m 100℅ anti aircraft gun, it’s a bitch finding an IWB holster that fits

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      I, on the other hand, am 100% PRO aircraft gun. What do you have against aircraft guns? I’m particularly fond of the GAU-8.

  23. avatar Lhstr says:

    they are all buried for later, just saying

  24. avatar John in AK says:

    The honest, sincere people (they do exist, no, really!) who preach the mantra of ‘gun control’ have minds crippled by the very fact that they are honest, sincere, generally gentle and polite people who obey laws and social mores, who avoid being rude or cruel to others, and who behave in accordance with the Golden Rule. Nothing ‘bad’ has ever happened to them or anyone that they know; They’ve never even been in a fistfight in school. Life is generally full of lotus blossomss and honeymead. . .
    That is their weakness. They have no frame of reference regarding evil, and suffer from massive cognitive dissonance when confronted by it.
    They simply cannot truly grasp the concept of there being ‘normal’ people, people who look very much as they do from the outside, people who don’t have hideous birthmarks, facial deformations, a hook for a hand and a clubfoot, as being completely different, IE evil and psychopathic or sociopathic.
    They know that THEY themselves will never murder, will never seriously WANT to kill anything, will never NEED a gun for protection, and do NOT, in particular, want to be punished by government for breaking any laws. Prison and fines frighten them; The mere possibility of execution is more than sufficient to keep them from murdering, obviously.
    Therefore, they believe that if they pass a law against something that they don’t want done, and make the punishment bad enough, NO ONE will break that law for fear of the punishment involved should they be caught (and everyone KNOWS that ALL criminals get caught–they see it on Law & Order every week) because THEY would never break such a law themselves–so why should anyone else?
    Sadly, any argument that is presented to them such as this, illustrating how evil people who want to mass murder will not be swayed by any possible consequences, unlike themselves, is utterly wasted.
    This mistaken world view does not make them stupid; It merely makes them Eloi in a world filled with Morlocks.
    Until a Morlock confronts them or someone that they know (and perhaps even afterwards), they were not going to be convinced that human beings cannot be controlled by laws unless they accept that control.

  25. avatar TroutsBane says:

    Simply this, they believe that governments can and will rise above human nature ( murder, etc). They reject the lessons of human history: The gulags, the concentration camps, and the treatment of political undesirables. So they believe government can regulate away murder, poverty, inequality, and hate. “Yes”, they say ” these things formed the nexus of the worst crimes in human history; but we are better now, society will prevail.” The mad fools. They glorify the apex of human stupidity that enables the worst barbarity of our flawed human race.

  26. avatar MyName says:

    I have found that there is a certain cross section of the population, and many gun control advocates are in this group, that seem to hold the view that at some point in the future people can be crafted into some sort of sterile, compliant, uniform mass of similar thinking and similar behaving entities. They extend this thinking into concluding that laws, and by extension centralized government power, are the vehicle that will transport people to this future. I do not know how they come by this notion since all available evidence from human history indicates that it is a fiction. People, for better or worse, regardless of repression and control, will assert their individuality and self determination. Some people will do this with great success and others will struggle and fail but all will, at some level, seek to establish for themselves what they want to be and work toward it. Some of those people will try to achieve goals that the majority of us will rightly regard as evil – i.e. mass murderers. The gun controllers fail to see this because the are stuck on the inaccurate premise that something can be done to change the ‘other people’.

    Gun control won’t work, because people won’t all conform and, even if you did magically succeed in eliminating all guns, people will still kill people – somehow. Some people just can’t accept this reality. Some of those people don’t accept it because they are stupid and some because they just haven’t thought about it much and some because they are invested in the control of others and want very badly to tell you what to do – whether it ‘works’ or not.

    One of the central problems these control types have, regardless of their motivation, is they are stuck on an inaccurate premise. Something of the form: Lots of guns leads to lots of opportunity for guns to be misused so fewer guns would present less opportunity and therefore less crime. This, coupled with the notion that there is a very high rate of gun related crime, leads them to the notion that reducing the guns reduces the crime. This is an invalid train of logic. The number of guns available is so many orders of magnitude greater than the number used in crime that it is not possible to argue that there is a meaningful correlation between their availability and their misuse. Put another way: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. This statement is true whether there are 3 guns or 3 million or 300 million or 3 billion or 0.

    I have, in years past, engaged many gun controllers in conversations and ad hoc debates on these topics and their argument nearly always resolves to something along the lines of: If there were fewer guns then there would be fewer shootings. I have tried, with varied success, to point out that this is not a logically sound premise and, that even if it were, there is no path to reducing the number of guns that does not include constraints on individual liberty and violation of fundamental human rights. Presented with this argument, they just restate their premise, “Well, I just think we should have fewer guns.” I’ve gotten to where I just ask, “how?”. No one ever has a workable answer.

    Some call outright for confiscation – I point out that this is a violation of rights and would lead to bloodshed, possibly civil war. They respond, “Well, I just think we should have fewer guns.”

    Some want to limit access, background checks and the like – I point out that there are hundreds of millions of guns already and people will get one if they want one. They respond, “Well, I just think we should have fewer guns.”

    Some want tighter controls on who can have a gun, some want to require more training, some want more paper trails, some want greater limits on manufacture, and so on and so on but all of them want more control over the lives of others and this is why their ideas are doomed to fail. Their ideas are doomed to fail because some people, many people, in truth, most people, don’t want to be controlled by someone else and they will, eventually, fight back – with a gun or not. Even the ones who want to control you and I will balk at the notion that they too could or should be controlled. Were it not so, there would be no USA, no 2nd Amendment and no debate to be had about gun control.

    Much of our current mass political conversation is about this topic of control – Who controls, who is controlled and in what ways. I have observed that those who would control guns and people’s access to them are the same people who want to control education, immigration, financial matters, health care, property rights and many other issues of political interest. Further, these same types tend to, in my experience, be the ones who want to control even the minutiae of everyday life – where you can go, what you can eat or drink, what you can say, ultimately, what you are allowed to think. This is in direct conflict with human nature and is not founded in a sustainable political philosophy – eventually, people throw off control, always have, always will.

  27. avatar PLMayer says:

    I stepped into a friend’s FB post regarding school shootings and need for gun control. I can’t let this one go and am tire of doing so. Does anyone have quick links to statistics on why gun control doesn’t work? I’m researching as well, but want cold hard facts and thought you all may have some handy.

    The response to my “we will just need to agree to disagree” was met with:

    Them: “Imagine how concerning it is for your friends and family to hear you argue that your access to guns is more important then their lives or the lives of their children.

    I’ll continue patiently waiting for your resources. Take your time finding them. I imagine it’s a difficult, perhaps impossible, task.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email