United Liberty
Nothing “common sense” in gun control
Tue, 10/05/2010 - 2:15pm | posted by Tom Knighton
One of the favorite phrases of the would-be gun grabbers is the phrase “common sense gun control”. The argument is that regulating guns, at least to some extent, is perfectly normal and necessary. Using that particular terminology is designed to paint anyone who opposes such regulations as lacking in that very same common sense.
The truth of the matter is that gun control isn’t common sense in any way.
First, let’s look at what’s happened where gun control is the toughest. In places like New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C., we find people afraid to step outside in some neighborhoods. While crime rates may be improving, there is some anecdotal evidence indicating that the police are manipulating the statistics. People who live there don’t exactly feel any safer.
In the United Kingdom, their total gun ban was heralded as an end to gun crime. The result was an increase in gun violence, as well as crime in general. Guns are so tightly regulated, and yet the bad guys still get them. The truth is that so-called “common sense” indicates that criminals, by their very nature, will break the law. They will seek out the tools that best enable them to carry out their trade. For them, that’s a gun. They run in circles that will provide the opportunities to get those tools. You’re not going to stop it. The very best you can do is minimize it.
However, gun laws to successfully disarm one group of people. Law abiding citizens are deprived of arms that they can use to protect themselves.
Another thing about “common sense” gun control is that those who advocate for such measures rarely take into account the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place. The reason to insure that we could be armed had nothing to do with criminals. No, it had more to do with the government.
Our forefathers had just fought a war for their freedom. They knew that government has a strong tendency to seek to gain more power at the expense of the governed. They wanted us, the people of the United States, to have the means to fight. Some argue that our Founding Fathers never imagined the firepower we would be able to possess. I’m not so sure. One look around Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, will clearly show you that Jefferson understood plenty. To imagine firepower increasing wouldn’t really be a stretch for such minds.
The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to stand against the military. They wanted us to have those means. Unfortunately, that’s been lost to the ages. However, we can make a stand to remain armed against the tyranny called crime. There is no “common sense” involved. The only common sense involved is to look at history, look at the founders intentions, and then start giving back our God given rights to self defense.
When those who want our guns say “common sense”, they mean only if you scrap the idea of thinking and feel instead. Unfortunately for them, “common sense” isn’t emotional but rational. They’ll lose the rational argument every time.
Posted a link to this on the Second Amendment Foundation facebook page. Thanks!
However, gun laws to successfully disarm one group of people.
do.
Our system is based upon freedom and individual liberty. What the people proposing common sense gun control actually are proposing is to change this and allow “authorities” to choose who will have rights and who won’t.
This is the very thing the founder sought to prevent through the Constitution and bill of rights which guarantee all men the same freedoms and rights. The very thing all tyrants crave to control and abolish.
TRUE FACT: The state with the most gun control laws has a murder rate four times higher than the state with the least.
Rational: The Brady Campaign Scorecard rates states by gun laws showing California with a score of 79 and Utah with a score of zero. The FBI crime report released 9-13-2010 tells us Cali has 5.3 murders per 100K of population compared to Utah’s 1.3 murders.
To quote John Lott, “More Guns, Less Crime”.
And I am….. E. Zach Lee-Wright
Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, that failed to protect them. Perhaps some might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it and held there fire. It seems that the criminals weren’t too impressed with the Mayer’s rules as Chicago murders are almost universally committed using supposedly banned guns, wielded by those who cannot lawfully posses them. Wolves attack sheep not bears. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike from a position of advantage.
The Sheppard lost a lamb to the wolf so he got a dog. The dogs teeth were no sharper nor its bit more vicious than the wolf but the wolf would rather go hungry than face them.
Criminals are immune to gun laws. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pale in comparison and are insignificant to those for the much greater affiances they have committed when caught. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility.
Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and there life to yet another criminal. Predators are themselves preyed upon by stronger meaner predators. Remember they also make the best victims as they are not going to call 911 and usually have something worth steeling. They need to intimidate or kill witnesses and victims. Would you turn it or testify against a criminal in his prime to whom you have no defense against. I think not. He may have friends, relatives, employees or fellow gang members. He might even get out and thank you personally for giving evidence against him.
It takes but a single dog amongst the sheep to deter the wolf.
Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, that failed to protect them. Perhaps some might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it and held there fire. It seems that the criminals weren’t too impressed with the Mayer’s rules as Chicago murders are almost universally committed using supposedly banned guns, wielded by those who cannot lawfully posses them. Wolves attack sheep not bears. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike from a position of advantage.
The Sheppard lost a lamb to the wolf so he got a dog. The dogs teeth were no sharper nor its bit more vicious than the wolf but the wolf would rather go hungry than face them.
Criminals are immune to gun laws. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pale in comparison and are insignificant to those for the much greater affiances they have committed when caught. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility.
Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and there life to yet another criminal. Predators are themselves preyed upon by stronger meaner predators. Remember they also make the best victims as they are not going to call 911 and usually have something worth steeling. They need to intimidate or kill witnesses and victims. Would you turn it or testify against a criminal in his prime to whom you have no defense against. I think not. He may have friends, relatives, employees or fellow gang members. He might even get out and thank you personally for giving evidence against him.
It takes but a single dog amongst the sheep to deter the wolf.