The FALSE COMFORT in “Gun Control”

Those who think gun bans and other "severe restrictions" can reduce gun violence are being naively foolish.

GUNS (yes, even VERY HIGH QUALITY ones) are very easy to make, so is ammunition. Even a nation as poor and as backward as the Philippines is awash in "backyard gun shops" because of the immoral and degenerate anti-gun laws of that government. (SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE)

In the USA we have millions of people with veritable machine shops in their basements and those people can very easily make high quality firearms. Such people are NOT "the problem." The guns they'd make are NOT "the problem." Nor are those like Cody Miller (https://reason.com/blog/2013/05/08/3d-guns-advocate-cody-wilson-is-about-mo), nor Andy Greenberg, author of the article, “I Made an Untraceable AR-15 ‘Ghost Gun’ in My Office - And It Was Easy” (http://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/). Mental defectives and various zealots ARE very much "the problem."

NOTHING is going to "fix" such people and little to nothing (legally speaking) is going to stop such determined people BEFORE they act.

That said, we HAVE laws that bar people with felony convictions and mental/emotional health problems from LEGALLY purchasing guns. The idea that HIPPA laws “make it difficult to enforce the mental health aspects of those laws” is a canard. Once a person applies for a gun license they are voluntarily surrendering those HIPPA protections as a condition of that application.

Personally, I’d go even further. Anyone on a “No Fly” list should be barred from purchasing a firearm, BUT the burden of proof lies with the State. An immediate “hearing” must be able to be demanded by ANY citizen at any time and if the government cannot meet its burden of proof on the spot, that individual must be released from that list.

THAT is NOT an “undue burden” on government.

I’d even go so far as to maintain that anyone sentenced to “Anger management” for offenses like “Road rage”/aggressive driving, or various domestic offenses also be barred from legally purchasing guns.

BUT nothing short of a ban on the production of guns, even, perhaps ESPECIALLY for police and military purposes could dramatically reduce gun violence in places like the U.S.

YES, it’s true that those people inclined toward mayhem and murder WILL BE able to get, or find ways to make “ghost guns,” but, once again, guns already are NOT the “weapon of choice” that jihadists and various militia groups are going to rely on. Jihadists primarily rely upon bombs and militia groups have not been a major problem as yet, outside of a few select areas (Idaho, Texas, etc.)

A few years ago, in the midst of the concerns over “missing USSR stockpiled suitcase nukes,” it was believed that at least one U.S.-based militia group had come to acquire such weaponry.

Those fears faded as time passed, with “experts” believing that, “If such a group possessed such weapons, they’d attempt to use them very quickly.” That may not be sound reasoning. Given that most such militia groups are comprised of former military members, caution and deliberate planning seem more the order of the day.

The future of mass killing lies in genetics. At least three militia groups in the U.S. have been in contact with geneticists from places like Hong Kong and the Ukraine. The thought is that targeted, very specifically targeted genetic warfare may very well become the “order of the day” in the near future. The idea of such scientists willingly cooperating with such “rogue groups” is probably very frightening to many people, but it shouldn’t be all that surprising. After all, scientists and researchers exist in the same political and moral fever swamps we all do today and many, despite relying on government grants for much of their research, also harbor strong suspicions, even hostility toward many of the world’s governments today.

So, for a time, it could become very challenging to be an “elected official,” but it’s doubtful that such targeted “genetic terrorism” would impact the average citizens of any country. These are not genetic diseases that would target entire populations, but instead, ones specifically designed to target specific bloodlines, even targeted to specific family groups!

Given the vast array of weaponry that’s available and “out there,” it’s naïve and foolish to really believe that gun control measures, no matter how draconian, would eliminate, or even substantially reduce the threat of violence people face each day.

In fact, it could well be argued that the unseen (perhaps even unknown) threats are far graver than those we see day-to-day.