Guns: Control or ban?

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. Why would you tolerate a little murder or mass murder, if you could get rid of it all? "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, and pump/lever action, then bolt action guns (which committed one of our worst mass shootings): the results are, there are no safe guns in the hands of crazies/citizens. Thus logic says they're lying, either to us, themselves or both.

What is reasonable when it comes to gun laws? I explain what it takes to be compliant with a few gun laws so that readers can decide how reasonable these laws are. Now I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, so don't take this as legal advice. But these are just a small sampling of the 20,000: local, state and national gun control laws that every owner must know and comply with, under the legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law is no excuse). The penalty for infraction is often a felony conviction, ruination and loss of gun rights by hyper-aggressive DA's who hate guns or want to get elected to higher office on the fraud that they're helping public safety. Or worse, the laws aren't enforced and teach both sides contempt for them. If any of these laws seem silly, annoying, or ineffective, you will begin to understand why gun-advocates mock and resist “reasonable gun control” and the legislators who create them.
Issue Lie Truth
Gun-control or Gun-ban?
🤪 Unreasonable
If leftist believe gun control works and guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need complete gun bans! Why would you settle for a little murder (or mass murder), when you could eliminate it all? Every year will offer politicians a new opportunity at making us incrementally safer, through less freedom. "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, pump/lever action, then finally bolt/break action guns. If guns are the cause, then there are no safe guns in the hands of your neighbors. If gun control works, then it would be reasonable to take them all! If it doesn't work, then virtually all gun control is unreasonable! Pick one. The worst mass murders were done with box cutters, bombs, or in countries with the strictest gun-control, so we know it doesn't work. Thus, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls" is a lie. Gun-controllers are lying: either to us, themselves or both. I've never met the gun-controller that would be satisfied with X, when that means their neighbors will still have guns. X is always and only the beginning to Y (tyrannical utopia).

If you think limiting liberty makes the world better/safer, then there's no end to the rationalization required to protect the children. A single gun control won't work, as proven by the 30,000+ gun control laws that still aren't enough, and 30,001 is unlikely to finally assuage their addiction for telling others what to do, and how to do it. So gun advocates know more about the intent of gun controllers than gun controllers do (or will admit), as proven by history. The only thing that will satisfy them is a police state: where only the police and government have guns, and the public is fully safe: just like Germany, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda, and so on.

Which is why I ask (and never get an answer), "how many people would you like killed for your agenda?" It's not rhetorical, or offensive attack, it's just a logical thought problem. If the only way to get what you want, is to create a civil war (or insurrection), and that would be required for the gun confiscation programs that they want (proven every time they compare us to the UK, Australia or Japan), then what price are they willing to pay? I usually get attacked, called names, claims of being melodramatic, by just following their cause to it's natural effect. But it's what their means will always end with: some will resist their attempts to steal their liberty, and then what? The choices are they learn the consequences of their actions and either (a) grow, accept the reality in America, change, and give up the false cause of "gun control" (which is people control by another name) or (b) they give up the pretense and accept that the road to gun-control utopia will be paved with the bodies of those that disagree with them, and accept that and decide how many lives they'll sacrifice for their cause.

Make believe

Let’s pretend that gun control could work. Most evidence we have is that it doesn’t, but let’s visit the pretend-land that gun controllers live in and call it Pyongyang (where only the police and military have guns, and liberty has been eradicated for the greater good, so the people are all equal and happy and there is no crime or guns), and just think this through. (Feel free to correct any step where I'm wrong).

Prohibition doesn't work

If prohibitions don't work against alcohol, drugs, rape, robbery and murder, then you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that guns are the only thing they would work against. Especially if you know it's easier to smuggle, steal or make a gun than it is to make a still (distilled alcohol), and if you don't know that, then you're not up for having an informed discussion on this topic. So if prohibitions won't work against guns, then gun control laws are just a divisive and futile power grab that can only polarize society and waste time from things that could save more lives: the most reasonable laws to save lives, wouldn't be gun-control laws. Oh, and we know gun control doesn't work, because many of the worst mass shootings happened in countries with the strictest gun control, and they didn't start with 400M guns like the U.S. would.

It doesn't matter which order we start with, outlawing each of the following must happen.

Semi-Auto Pistols

Most crime and shootings (quantity and death-count) are by pistol (not rifles or the dreaded "assault rifles"). Thus if we blame the guns for the actions of criminals, we must outlaw ALL semi-auto pistols. Poof, they're gone. Again, we're in Pyongyang, where we just use the magic of tolerance to make them all disappear. Never mind that semi-auto’s like the 1911 is the most popular pistol, and is so named because of the year it was released. This is a gun that is considered a curio/antique because of it’s 100+ year age. And we'll ignore that other repeaters go back to the 1600’s. In Pyongyang everyone is compliant with the law, so we don't have the 20-40% compliance rate that Australia had after their ban, we're at 100% immediately. And while economics says the value of these guns will skyrockets (due to scarcity), in Pyongyang no one would disobey the law and make/smuggle/steal/trade them illegally for profit (thus we don't have to go door to door and take them by force), everyone just turned them all in because our Peerless Leaders told us to, and they're instantly off the streets tomorrow. What happens next?

Semi-auto Rifles... and Shotguns

Again, it doesn't matter which is first. If you outlaw semi-auto pistols or semi-auto hunting rifles with black plastic / cosmetic parts (called "Assault Rifles"). A rifle can be cut down to pistol size in about 15 minutes with a hacksaw, and you can add a stock to a pistol in a little longer. The point is you can't outlaw one, without outlawing the other, or criminals will just convert them. Thus, if you care about firepower or conceal-ability (and you blame guns for criminals behavior), you have to criminalize both.

There's a fallacy amongst hoplophobes that limiting magazines to 10 rounds will limit rate of fire and give someone the opportunity to charge the shooter, in the split-second it takes to reload. Or that assault rifles (a made up term) have some unique capabilities. Facts: We fought all wars prior to the Korean war without removable magazines, and all wars prior to Vietnam with 10 round magazines (or less). The FBI studied mass shootings and found there was only one case where anyone was able to disarm a shooter during reloads, and that's just because he stumbled around the corner into someone while reloading. So magazine limits, assault rifle bans, outlawing removable magazines, and so on, sound great to those who don't know any better, but is just an infuriating ineffective annoyance to gun owners. Each bad law like this, makes it harder to pass "good" laws, as the tolerance for any more legislation was been wasted dividing us, instead of making a real difference.

So the Great Party Leader of our Nation must outlaw ALL semi-automatics (pistols and rifles). Oh, and shotguns, because it's all the same problem, wether one bullet, or many pellets come out the business end of the boom-stick. Thus we use the magic of tolerance again, to make all the shotguns (along with all their pistols and rifles) go away. Presumably this magic happens when people join hands and sing "Imagine" or their [coke commercial.]

And what did we learn? Pistols, Rifles, bullet or scattergun, all need to be banned to limit firepower. So now what?


The few non-followers of the Sun Source of Wisdom, will be the thugs/psychos/etc that would use kill sticks. They will of course, just move to revolvers: they’re still easy to conceal and carry. In fact more crimes are committed with them than semi-autos. And you can carry more than one (a Chicago reload is to just carry more than one gun: so you don't reload at all, you just pull out your backup gun and keep firing). A thug with a revolver is as dangerous as one with a semi-auto, so you didn't impact crime. And most mass shooters don’t even need to reload w/10 rounds. Since they make 10-12 round revolvers, a reload isn't really necessary, but if a crazy carries 4 pistols, they can clear 40-48 before offing himself: which is a higher kill rate that even our top mass shootings have managed. Thus, we still haven't done a thing for stopping mass shootings: firepower is virtually unchanged, and in fact, the higher reliability of revolers would likely increase gun fatalities. Revolvers are cheaper than semi-autos (due to their simplicity), so you did lower the cost for the bad guys, but nothing really good happened.

Reload times: There’s another delusion by denizens of Pyongyang that somehow in the fraction of a second while a shooter is reloading a revolver, that you can cover 20 or 30 feet and disarm them before getting perforated, assuming the shooter doesn’t have a backup gun. Our esteemed followers don’t know what they’re talking about. Watch this guy (world record holder: Jerry Miculek) fire and imagine yourself trying to charge during a reload:

Now some will claim, "but he's an expert", and while that's true, , an idiot can learn to do 5 or 6 reloads in a second each. If gun controllers had ever fired a gun, or talked to experts before trying to make laws to fix things, they'd not how impractical magazine limits are for curing mass shootings. Heck, 23 mass shootings in the last 25 years have used revolvers.

So what did we learn? Even if we could eliminate all semi-auto’s, it still wouldn’t matter, because revolvers are as effective (or more so, in unskilled hands). So we outlaw them through the same magic that got rid of all semi-auto's. And now what?

Pump and Lever action Rifles and Shotguns

If charging someone during reloads is impractical, image how "learning disabled" you'd have to be to think you could charge someone in the time it takes to flick your wrist and re-arm a pump/lever action gun. No one is rushing someone with one of these guns either. 22 mass shootings used pump action shotguns -- they don't break down the 29 rifles by action. An Edgewater (Annapolis Maryland) mass shooter with pump & lever action rifles was recently thwarted (12/2015) before he could execute his plan. No one doubts he could have been as effective, or more so, with these guns. You're no less dead because of the action the gun uses to reload, and the rate of fire is well beyond necessary in these cases.

Again, we still get into the problem, that the ignorant people (and their constituents) writing regulations, tends to make things worse, not better. The average shooting is 10 rounds over 5 minutes: muskets can exceed that rate of fire. People freeze, hide, and wait for shooters to come to them. With a shotgun, you can just add rounds as you go (and keep it perpetually reloaded): they're actually better/worse for causing mass casualties. You don't need to aim as well, they have more stopping power, and load as you go (without having to dump magazines). Fortunately, most shooters are enamored with video games and so go to less effective rifles, but if you use magic of tolerance to take away everything but pumps/levers, you still made the problem worse.

Here's Patrick Flanigan, throwing up 6 clay targets and shooting them all before they hit the ground, with a Pump Action Shotgun. He may be faster than the average person, but have no doubt that anyone vaguely competent can shoot much faster than 1 per second:

So what did we learn? Even all semi-auto, rifles and pistols, don't make a lick of difference to crime or mass shootings (and may make things worse). We have to outlaw pumps and lever action rifles too. Only bolt and break actions should be allowed, then we'll be "safe". Or will we?

Bolt and Break action guns

World War I British Army infantrymen, shooting bolt-action .303 Enfield rifles (with much more muzzle energy and greater range than today’s so-called “assault weapons”), were known for their ability to put 15 rounds on a target at 300 yards in under 1 minute. The Americans of the era were equally proficient. Since it would take nearly a minute for the average group of people to sprint that far, that means you'd need a mob of at least 16 people to charge them to disarm them, and you'd lose 15 of them along the way. Oh and the record is 38 shots on target in one minute at 300 yards, so you better hope the shooter isn't better than average. The practicality of limiting firepower only exists in the minds of the clueless.

One of our deadliest shootings in history was Charles Whitman of UT Austin, used a bolt action Remington 700 hunting rifle to kill 11 of the 16 total fatalities there, and wounded 32 others, at ranges up to 500 yards. Then there was the D.C. / Beltway Sniper attackers that killed 17 people over a month. Now they used an AR-15 like Rifle, but in almost all the attacks, the victims were hit by a single bullet, then they moved locations. And there were at least 2 other mass shooters that used bolt action hunting rifles. Do you really want to convert mass shooters from close range weapons and tactics to longer range ones, as if this makes it better?

When paintball first started, they only made bolt action paint-guns — it took me 10 minutes with a piece of PVC pipe and a drill to convert my bolt action gun into a pump action gun. It's not a complex process and would take about 15 minutes on the Internet to figure out. So Pyongyang must outlaw bolt actions too, because they're still effective for mass shooting and crimes, and if you want, an idiot could convert them to pump action.

Australia tried to ban just pistols, then semi-auto’s, they’ve moved into efforts to outlaw all pump and lever actions, for exactly this reason. During that time, the percentage of crimes committed with guns hasn't changed at all. But they did change mass murders: the crazies went to bombs and fire (burning down dormitories and hotels with people in them), and started getting much higher victim counts than before or the U.S. average. Japan got chemical attacks on the subway, Europe got bombers and shooters to kill even more. Outlawing the guns didn't impact mass murder, it just changed to the tools to more effective means. Heck, our largest mass murder was perpetrated by box cutters.

The Truth: Bans or Liars

Which pretty much means the only effective “gun control” is a full banning of all guns and knowledge back to the early 16th century. Which leads me to the point: there are only a two groups of gun controllers: those that want complete-bans and liars.

If they believe that guns are responsible for killing people, and eliminating them would save lives, then OF COURSE they think the more they eliminate, then the more good they will do. Thus they want bans. And no matter what they get as far as regulations, crazies will still shoot people, and thus they’ll move to banning the next thing, until they get to their ideal: a police state where only the government (cops and military) have guns, and ruthlessly use them to make sure no one else does. What could go wrong?

Now, that’s not meant to be insulting. Many of those folks sincerely think they’re in a 3rd category (the alternate universe of Pyongyang), but they’re just sincerely lying to themselves. Maybe, someday, I’ll meet the one person that really wants just one type of gun, and will be completely satisfied when it does absolutely nothing to help with crime or mass shooting. But I’ll probably meet the Easter Bunny first.

So almost all gun-phobics start with, “nobody wants to take away your guns… we just want reasonable controls”, and they get mad if you argue about gun bans, and they claim, “that’s not what I want”. They want to appear reasonable while stripping other people of their rights to self-defense. Then we go down the logic path I just demonstrated, and they either admit the truth, go away mad, or both.

Why aren't 30,000+ gun-control laws in the U.S., that are already in effect enough? (Especially when most aren’t reasonable at all?) You look at implementation in states like New Jersey, where they charge a man for owning a 17th century antique. They later dropped the charges after he wouldn’t plead down, and made enough of a public stink about it (and it cost him many thousands in legal bills), but that he was charged at all, is the problem. California says you can own a gun (barely), you just can’t ever carry one (they refuse to issue conceal and carry permits or open carry). That’s like California saying they have free speech, but it only applies if you’re living in Texas. The left claims, "we don't want your guns", then regurgitates the delusional fraud that the 2nd Amendment was only about single shot muskets (based on their ignorance about 20 shot repeaters of the day). But ignoring the stupidity of their claim, they get caught proving they want to throw you in prison and ruin your life for even owning antiques. Unloaded black powder guns, are just too dangerous, while he was driving a 4,000 lbs. murder machine that kills 35,000 people per year. Whereas the last flintlock gun used in a murder (that I'm aware of) was from 1980.

Those that haven't looked at the problem (or don't know guns and tactics) will come up with 1-10 simple ignorance-induced ideas to fix things and make them better. Then you explain which ones have been implemented already (and why it didn’t work), and finally, they’ll say, “why can’t we be like Australia, Japan or the UK? And eliminate guns like they did.” And gotcha, the truth always slips out: they secretly want complete bans, like Austria, Japan or the UK, but they will attack you for pointing that out. They'll think you tricked them, but you only got them to admit a truth they should have known and admitted to, all along. Their only real solution is a complete ban, which is completely impractical, thus this whole effort is less than futile: it's divisive.

They’re only “reasonable” in that they understand they can’t get what they really want, so they’ll start walking away your rights, one by one, before they start running them away. And all gun-rights advocates, that have had to defend their liberties, for years (or decades), know this. Which is why they'er so dug in. This meme that sums it up:

Nobody is trying to take your guns! We just want to make you register them, violate your privacy by publishing those lists (NY/NJ), certify which guns you can buy/collect and what detrimental features (driving up costs and down reliability) they must have, and what beneficial or cosmetic features they can't have (like black plastic), limit magazine capacity, do background checks on you, make you take safety tests, then get a note from me doctor saying that I'm fit to have one, add “cooling off” period (no matter how many other guns you own), add complexity and cost to all transfers of ownership, arrest you if you loan your gun to anyone else (like your wife) or make any unauthorized modifications, prohibit carrying in your car or on your person, then if you go through hoops to get the training/certification to carry one they’ll arrest you for carrying it anyways (if you get within 1,000’ of any School, Hospital or Government building, which are everywhere), micromanage how you store your guns “for the kids” (even if you don’t have kids), ban or limit the ammo you can use, drive up ammo costs with anti-lead or purchase quantity regulations, and of course charge you taxes and fees for doing all of this. Then if you break any of those rules (or any of the thousands of others) we'll throw you in prison and take away all your guns and liberty.

But they don’t want to BAN guns, just punish you for having them, using them, or trading them. And if you say we should be able to check for a valid ID for someone to vote, those same folks that want death by 1,000 cuts for gun owners to exercise their rights, will scream how you’re trying to suppress someone’s right to vote with such burdensome regulations as showing the ID that they need for everything else in life: totally missing the irony and hypocrisy in their double-standards.

This is the reason gun owners don't trust politicians that say they don't want to ban guns, is because (a) they're lying (b) they prove their lying by comparing us to places with bans (as their ultimate objective) (c) they almost all have cases where they admitted what they really wanted bans (and by voting for, or promoting bans in their past). Obama says something like, "nobody wants to take away your guns", and the gullible and partisans believe him... while the informed know that his own history is littered with him comparing us to utopias that banned guns, and him supporting bans in the past (in Chicago, etc), and getting caught on tape admitting he wants to ban them. Why would anyone think every new law/regulation is just a step towards his ideal?

So while every Newspaper, politician, gun control advocates says, “I’m reasonable, I only want X”, you can catch them all calling for or championing complete bans when they forget others are looking. And then they wonder why gun owners don’t trust them?

The final solution


One last visit to Pyongyang. Let's give them what the want and imagine we banned all guns in America tomorrow, and gave the gun controllers the first step towards their utopia. Ignoring the practicalities that it would require a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment that you could never pass, we're pretending the "magic of tolerance" cured that. What's the next step towards their vision?

Again, we'll ignore that they didn't really ban all guns. They only created a police state: when only the police/government has guns. Thus they eliminated all controls and limits on government, criminals or police abuse, who still have guns. But nothing bad could happen. This isn't at all like the massacres that happened by all the other countries that enacted progressive gun control policies in the past, then exterminated or reeducated any independent thinkers.

You have to be a special kind of stupid/progressive to think people comply with laws just because someone passed them. You have to be prepared to enforce them. And the right of self-defense and guns is such a deeply held belief it would require ruthless force, compliance is not guaranteed, even in Pyongyang.

I point out it would tear the nation apart, and start an insurrection/civil war. I ask the gun controllers, "how many people are you prepared to kill to get what you want?"

They wave it off as melodramatic, or me being unreasonable, but it is they who are not thinking it through. “From my cold dead hands” is not just a metaphor. Guns are a way of life for way too many people in the U.S., even if provincial coastal liberals haven’t experienced it. There are people that would die to defend the constitution and their rights, and trying to take their guns would trigger many of them into action. McVeigh bombed IRS over Ruby Ridge and Waco (illegal overreach by the government). That's not to justify his actions (or anyone like him), but how many more of them do you think would come out of the woodwork, if you tried to take away the inalienable right to self defense, as recognized by the constitution? Math says that with 330M people, even if only the 3rd standard deviation (which is way on the edge of a bell curve) means there's 891,000 people that would fight an insurrection against their government over this, even the 4th is 33,000 people, if you tried to take away their civil liberties (guns). These numbers are math's way of saying, "this is a dumb fucking idea".

I have no idea of the scale of outcome: would it be murdering a few thousand otherwise non-criminal people to outlaw guns, or cause full scale civil war that would last generations? Who knows? Whole countries and civilizations have fallen into generations of chaos for less. But best case, many would have to die. You would HAVE to create a police state, go door to door, force compliance, and deal with the blowback for these policies. And that's a lot of death just to get your way. There's no practical way that the ramifications of trying to take away guns wouldn't end in far more death and violence than leaving the people alone would.

Thus the point is Gun control advocates are fooling themselves on, or being fooled by the politicians on, is that they can make a positive difference by pushing their agenda. They can harass legal gun owners, but not do anything effective to restrict guns. They can polarize and divide us, tear the nation apart, create more resistance: but we're not the UK, Germany, or Japan. We fought the revolutionary war over gun control, "the British were coming [to lock up the guns]" is what got the shot heard around the World. Gun-controllers may not have any clue about history, but the rest of us do. When people try prohibitions, they fail at doing anything but turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. And then many sympathizers start rooting and supporting the criminals over the government. This is why drug dealers can exist without people reporting them.

To even fathom their views, we had to ignore all practicalities of it: ignore the Constitution, the ability to change this issue, the ramifications of the policy change, that with 100M+ guns on the street (and 300M in homes) it would take a century to do anything good (if you assume removing liberty is good), ignore how easy it is to smuggle/make/modify guns, that they could just steal them from cops/military, that scarcity increases value (smuggling rings), that gun bans didn't decrease the prevalence of gun-crime in places like Australia, or the entire history of failures of prohibition. To visit Pyongyang we had to ignore what makes us human: our higher learning abilities and ability to think about abstract concepts and their consequences, and look at the results. But in the real world, we know that can't be done, nor should it. The costs of their utopia must be considered.

So is gun control worth destroying the nation? (Or at least destabilizing it for a decade or more). Is it worth the lives that will be lost? Or should we focus our energies on the root of the problem (the criminals), and something that has a chance of being effective without destroying the nation, and that’s the criminals and the mentally ill?

I know which I choose, but at the heart of it, gun-controllers are control-freaks that don’t trust their neighbors with "a tool of death". And thus they'll start trying to take away those tools and liberties, one at a time, until they get to their end game: which they think is utopia, but is ultimately going to be murdering everyone that disagreed with them and resists. They’ll compromise, as long as you’re giving up your rights, one step at a time. But they're like a rapist willing to compromise with his victim and negotiating for a blow job, then pretending the victim is unreasonable for not going along. The point is the victims rights should not be negotiable to begin with.


Cops.jpg 10Guns.jpg Castration.jpg
Written: 2016.09.06