On freerepublic.com, a discussion about the Moms Demand Action push for a gun ban following an armed robbery of a bank inside of a Kroger store, brought this commonly expressed question from rktman, “Uh, how would this have stopped the robbery again? Please ‘splain that to us.” I will explain it. MDA is playing a very long game. In order to be effective, they have to reduce the number of guns in society by significant amounts. They have to avoid considering any potential benefits gained from gun ownership. Here is how I believe they think it will work . . .
1. Bully retail establishments into banning the carry of guns in their stores, as a step toward making guns illegitimate in society, as the combination of trial lawyers, legislators, and the old media have done with cigarettes.
2. Continue incrementally banning guns wherever possible to make guns more and more socially unacceptable, and legally difficult to own, in order to reduce the number of legal gun owners.
3. When the number of legal gun owners is reduced sufficiently, ban the legal ownership of guns, except in extremely restricted circumstances. Think Australia and the U.K.
4. Gradually, through incremental gun confiscation, “buy backs”, increasingly draconian restrictions on ownership and use, perhaps over a couple of generations, reduce the number of guns legitimately owned by 99 percent of the population.
5. This will probably start to reduce the number of guns used criminally by some amount, however small. As soon as the number of gun owners and/or guns begins to drop, immediately claim credit for any crime reduction, even if the trends started long before your efforts.
6. Keep up the pressure, and eventually, after several decades, we will have less crimes committed with guns. This is almost sure to happen, because even though crime hasn’t been reduced elsewhere when guns were banned or restricted, we have a much larger number of crimes committed with guns than does the UK, Japan or Australia.
7. Any increase in crime by other means that may result won’t matter. The goal is to reduce the number of crimes with guns, so only those statistics will be relevant. If overall homicides increase, as long as they aren’t committed with guns it will validate the cause of disarmament. We can then our efforts to banning knives, as they have in the UK.
8. We can be sure that governments will be beneficent along the way, because no western democracy has been overthrown in the last 75 years. Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and Ukraine or other examples don’t count, because they were never really western Democracies. Blame their problems on the Second Amendment in the US or on other meddling western democracies.
So you see, if the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex gets its way, sometime in the distant future, the Constitution will have been trashed and the U.S. will be a utopian socialist state like the UK. And we will have reduced armed robberies committed with guns by some amount.
This general program seemed to be working as planned until about 1994. Except, of course, that the crime rate kept increasing, even with ever more restrictions on guns. About 1994 “gun control” peaked, as did the levels of violent crime. The electorate rebelled against the Clinton “assault weapon” ban at the polls. Second Amendment supporters made serious gains in rolling back gun control laws from 1994 through 2013. And the rate of “gun violence” and overall violent crime was cut in half.
Much as it may be their goal, I don’t believe the disarmers have sufficient media control to pull off the above program, as illustrated by the failure of the Obama push for universal background checks and a new assault weapons ban. Gun grabbers have been reduced to trying to accomplish their goals via a media push and an injection of “progressive” billionaire money.
A serious challenge exists in the form of tens of millions of dollars that have been thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594. If the disarmenters fail there after spending 10 times as much as Second Amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.