Let’s be clear: the fight for firearms freedom will never be won. There will always be statists attempting to eliminate American’s natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights advocates must work to retain their rights forevermore. Not to mention continuing the battle to roll back the blanket thrown over gun rights in states like New Jersey and Hawaii. But it’s certainly true that the anti-gun agitprop campaigners are making increasingly idiotic arguments. Case in point: our previous post AZ Central on Decapitation Killer: What If He’d Had A Gun? And this [via Dr Linda Shelton at dailykos.com] . . .
Americans own 50% of all civilian owned guns in the world. How could we possibly find, license, and control them at this point?
I believe the horse is out of the barn on this issue and there is almost no way to succeed in decreasing crime by controlling weapons, although I do believe we need to continue to try to license gun ownership and keep track of guns. We should move towards requiring a strict rule for manufacturers that they include in the weapon an embedded high tech chip to identify the original buyer.
A more practical manner of reducing gun deaths is strict bullet control at least as serious as with driver’s licenses. Licenses of several levels like level one for limited # bullets for a 22. To own high capacity clips or clips for guns with more than one bullet at a time must have advanced level bullet certificates for mental health and from police every two years. To own high caliber bullets or clips with more than a few bullets you would have to have training similar to an officer. Licensees would also have to keep records of their bullets like pharmacists do with narcotics. How many they have, who they give or sell them to, how they were used (target practice, etc).
This is not the first time the antis have made this “argument.” Most prominently, comedian Chris Rock offered this “solution” in his 1999 bullet control shtick. Not to mention Chicago’s and Providence’s unsuccessful attempts to tax bullets. And the recently abandoned ammunition registry mandate in New York’s ironically named Safe Act’s restrictions on internet-provided ammunition. But it is the first time I’ve seen a serious “regulate bullets” proposal by antis.
A quick aside . . .
Dr. Shelton’s article presents yet another assertion of the recently propagated myth that concealed carriers can’t cope with armed self-defense (.e.g., Washington Post: “Watch what happens when regular people try to use handguns in self-defense”). It’s enough to make you think these anti-gun memes are part of co-ordinated campaign.
Armed civilians do more harm than good. Studies have shown that practicing with a stationary target under calm conditions does not prepare you to duck, be aware of your surroundings and avoid tunnel vision of fight or flight situation where you fail to recognize innocent and shoot wildly, and without constant intense training, you do not have muscle memory to overcome the shakiness from stress hormones and fight or flight signals from nervous system removing blood from periphery and giving it to large muscles and center mass plus brain, as well as have the quickness and accuracy needed in a rapidly evolving active shooter situation with innocents running everywhere including in front of your gun. Armed civilians everywhere will cause more death and injury, not less.
Do these non-sensical posts indicate increasing desperation amongst the civilian disarmament industrial complex? Probably not. The antis have never been constrained by the boundaries of fact, logic or common sense – a term they misuse with Orwellian gusto. Still, their ridiculous rhetoric is interesting and, in a strange way, heartening.