Gun control or gun ban?
| Gun control or gun ban?
|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 (violence and a police state).|
Thought Experimentprohibition incentivizing a black market and crime). All evidence we have is that this is brain-dead wrong, but let’s visit the pretend-land that gun controllers live in, and let's walk through each of the obvious steps on their road to Dystopia. Feel free to correct any step where I'm wrong. Gun controllers will claim that all they want it X to make us a better place... then when that doesn't work, because you can murder someone with another kind of gun, they'll go for that too, until there are no guns left. So they'll never be happy with gun control until they have gun bans. And when that doesn't work, then what?
Follow each one:
- We just need to ban high capacity magazines. But those are useless because Reload Times are too fast: carrying 10 x 30 rounds, or 30 x 10 rounds doesn't change the rate of fire, or effectiveness, or odds of stopping a mass shooter. So that gun-control won't work, and they need to do more.
- We also need ban Military Assault Weapons. But that's useless because an assault weapon is just a low powered hunting rifle with accessories rails like a pistol grip or front grip. So they need to do more.
- We also need to ban all semi-automatic pistols. But that's useless because there are still semi-auto-rifles and shotguns, and you can cut either down (or add a stock and longer barrel to pistols to make them a rifle). So banning one without banning both does nothing. So they need to do more.
- We also need to ban all semi-automatic rifles... and shotguns. But that's useless because there are still revolvers, which has virtually the same rate of fire and reload times as a semi-automatic, and they're cheaper and more concealable. So they need to do more.
- We also need to ban all revolvers. But that's useless because any mass shooters can still use those a pump or lever action at the same rate as a revolver, and they can reload while firing, that's even worse. So they need to do more.
- We also need to ban all pump and lever action Rifles and Shotguns. But that's useless because there are still bolt action guns, which can still fire 38 rounds a minute and caused some of the worst mass murders in our history. Well that won't do, so they need to do more.
- Thus they need to ban all bolt action guns too. But that won't stop mass shootings because there's still break action action guns. A top shooter can shoot about 1 round per second (60 rounds per minute), sustained fire, using a double barrel break action gun -- and that's without using his backup gun for charges. Remember scatter guns (shotguns) do MORE damage per shot and get more lethal the closer you get. Compared to the average mass murder incident 1-2 kills per minute, this is way more firepower than they need. So do you really think them only killed a dozen or so people is going to appease the gun grabbers? So they need to do more.
- We also need to ban all break action guns. That leaves muzzle loaders and Air Rifles. And before you mock BB-guns, mass-shooters could easily go to large bore air rifles and sniper attacks. Before you laugh the circa 1790 Girandoni that Thomas Jefferson had could fire 22 shot of .46 caliber lead balls, reload the tube in a couple seconds and do it again. Each shot could take down a bear or elk (easily a human). It was used on the Lewis and Clark expedition to demonstrate to local Indian tribes the kind of magical firepower they had and is why no Indian tribe attacked them. So they need to do more.
- So they need to ban all air rifles as well. And do you think they'll be happy just because they banned guns down to large caliber BB guns? Nope. Like the UK, they'll have to start banning knives as well. All while mass murders go to more effective Trucks, Bombs, or even box cutters (which is what got hijackers the plans that brought down the twin towers).
Gun controllers will claim that all they want it X to make us a better place... then when that doesn't work, because you can murder someone with another kind of gun, they'll go for that too, until there are no guns left. So they'll never be happy with gun control until they have gun bans. ALL OF THEM! And when that doesn't work, then what?
Again, that shows that anyone who claims they just want "reasonable gun control", or one or two things -- and then they will tolerate criminals or mass murderers just using the next kind of gun down the list, is a liar (politician) or a fool (their constituents). If you blame the tool, then all tools must be banned!
Everyone that knows the first thing about guns knows that every gun is dangerous, just like trucks and cars (that kill far more people per year), knives, fuel (gasoline/diesel) and fertilizer (bombs) or many household cleaners (bomb materials), fire, and pointy sticks (knives/swords), and so on. If you blame the tool, then you have to keep banning all the tools.... just like they're doing in dystopias like the UK, where they have knife bans as their stabbing rates (and knife murders) are far higher than the U.S., as are their bombings, home invasion robberies and other things that American gun controllers want us to be more like. Gun grabbers are luddites that prove the Dunning-Kruger effect, and they will keep moving back in time, trying to ban technologies from the 1790's, and when they figure out that the real problem is steel/iron (knives), they'll try to drive us back to the Stone Age.... and then they'll still only find out that clubs and stone axes can kill people too. Will they finally learn? I doubt it. If they could learn, they would have listened and learned about guns long ago (before forming their opinions), and they wouldn't be gun controllers in the first place.
This is the shorter version of this article, if you want more detail or defense of each point, you can read: Gun Bans.
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.
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.
- What is an assault rifle?
- Why gun control can never work in the USA: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa