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.

The Abject Folly of Gun Control

In the recent Virginia Tech rampage, many observers point to the fact that a foreign national ( Cho Seung-Hui) being able to legally purchase a gun proves the need for more stringent gun control, but what it really proves is the abject folly of gun bans!

We already have strict laws on gun registration and convicted felons, people with a history of mental disorders and foreign nationals are already barred from legally owning guns.

Yet, those groups generally have little problem getting guns "illegally," or what I prefer to call, "extra-legally" or outside the law.

That merely proves that gun bans work about as well as drug bans, which is to say, not at all.

I wish it weren't true, but violent people are always going to do violent things and get the tools by which to carry them out and as I said, many Americans depend on that (SADLY so) for their jobs. We are and always have been a relatively violent society and it's probably true that a certain amount of violence comes with being a free and open society.

Given that we'll never have a gun-free society, as no one has ever suggested disarming the police or military, and thefts from those two organizations account for a large number of the guns on the black market, we're never going to get rid of gun violence either.

The most draconian gun bans (like the ones in NYC & D.C.) only succeed in disarming honest, law-abiding citizens. In fact, they disarm people like the students killed at VA Tech.

They do not disarm those intent on harming them.

You see how that works?

If person-X is already intent on breaking the laws against murder, he's not going to be deterred by a few extra laws against "carrying a concealed weapon," or "committing a felony with a gun," etc.

Gun control has never worked!

Places like NYC & D.C. with the nation's strictest gun laws have also had among the highest rates of gun crime.

Rudy Giuliani inherited NYC's strict gun laws.

In other words, gun control did NOTHING to bring down NYC's crime rate during his tenure, Bill Bratton's "Community Policing" DID.

Bratton instituted a program where cops swept squeegee men off NYC streets, arrested "aggressive panhandlers," went after "quality of life" crimes and ran those perps through the system, finding (unsurprisingly) that many of those who routinely engaged in "quality of life" crimes (like public urination, public drunkenness and turnstile jumping) also had outstanding warrants for more serious crimes.

During Giuliani's tenure getting guns off NYC's streets was a top priority, one that resulted in random "stop & frisks" in "targeted neighborhoods" (ie. inner city nabes)...that policy was highlighted in the Amadou Diallo killing.

The Giuliani administration greatly reduced crime, dropping the murder rate that had reached over 2,000/year under Liberal Dem Dave Dinkins, to around 500/year, but that administration did not eradicate NYC's drug problem, nor did it get guns off the streets.

Criminals don't obey laws, guns are too easy to make and cops can't act proactively, as they arrive in response to and after the crime has been committed.

What gun bans effectively do is to disarm the honest, law-abiding citizens, and outlaw violent self-defense (which is a basic and fundamental right we all share) making it even easier for miscreants to hunt the law-abiding, like "fish in a barrel."

The lesson of Luby's was clear.

Guns were banned in that diner, so even the military men from nearby Fort Hood were unarmed (leaving their weapons in their cars) when George Hennard came calling.

The gun ban didn't work.

ONE armed patron could've prevented that attack. A bunch of armed patrons would've almost certainly stopped it dead in its tracks.

The lesson from the LIRR shooting rampage was clear.

NYC's gun ban didn't stop Colin Ferguson from getting that gun and killing all those people. The gun ban didn't work.

One armed rider on that LIRR train that night could've stopped that rampage. A bunch of armed LIRR passengers almost certainly would've stopped it.

A ban on illegal aliens would've also done much to stop that one rampage.

The lesson from Virginia Tech is clear too.

Guns were banned on VT's campus and that ban only disarmed the law-abiding students who would be the victims of this tragedy.

One armed student could've ended that rampage and a bunch of armed students would've almost certainly stopped it early on.

Banning things never works.

We haven't been able to successfully ban drugs and we haven't been able to successfully ban guns either.

And the problem isn't those THINGS.

The problem is malicious behavior, which is something that bans fail to address.

There's no way to stop malicious behavior by fiat (law), because the law can only be applied AFTER the fact.

In places were gun laws are strictest (NYC, Wash, D.C.) only the law-abiding and most likely victims are disarmed, making them easier targets, as the thugs cannot be disarmed by mere law.

Gun bans do not address malicious behavior, so their goal is not "reducing violence."

If it were, the fact that violence actually increases under such bans would give those who support such bans pause for thought - it doesn't, so that is NOT their aim.

There is ONLY one effective way to deal with malicious, malevolent behavior and that's to encourage all those in society to oppose it, violently when necessary and to confront it, with force, whenever malicious behavior is exhibited.

If the goal is reducing violence/malicious behavior, then it's not a matter of banning a single tool, among many, that can be used to that end, a tool that can and, more often than not, IS used for defense, but to encourage and celebrate vigorous personal defense.

Lessons From Luby’s...and VA Tech

Today's Virginia Tech massacre, the largest shooting rampage in American history, offers up many of the same lessons that the Luby’s massacre (of 10-16-91) offered, but will we take them?

On that October day back in 1991 a beserk, unemployed man named George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger Pick-up through the window of Luby’s luncheonette in Kileen, Texas, bellowing, “This is what Bell County has done to me!”

He commenced to stalk the restaurant with a Glock 9mm and a Ruger p89. By the time he took his own life, he’d killed 23 and wounded 20 others.

At the time, Luby’s was the largest shooting rampage in American history, but unlike the Reagan shooting and the LIRR mass murders, that yielded more calls for gun control, an enlightened voice came through from the Luby’s massacre, as the daughter of two people killed at Luby’s, Suzanna Gratia Hupp (above left), ran for statewide office in Texas and won.

in 1995 Texas lawmakers, led by that same Suzanna Gratia Hupp passed a law over the veto of former Governor Ann Richards that allowed Texas citizens to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit in part as a reaction against the massacre. Soon after, many states considered similar weapon permits for citizens.

The folly of gun control laws is that they ONLY disarm the law-abiding.

Thugs and outcasts will always find guns, whether they have to be stolen from military bases, police precincts and evidence rooms or simply made.

Guns are remarkably easy to make.

The idea of disarming everyone “except for the police and the military” is just as easy an idea to come across, but it’s not just easy, it’s simplistic.

Disarming the law-abiding is a net negative for everyone’s security.

In places where concealed handgun permits are regularly granted, there are actually, on average, fewer gun crimes than in places with the strictest gun control laws (Wash, D.C. & NYC).

Why did Suzanna Gratia Hupp take a very different lesson away from Luby’s than Caroline McCarthy, a widow of a LIRR shooting spree, conducted by illegal immigrant, Colin Ferguson?

Perhaps because while Suzanna Gratia Hupp was raised in the pro-gun culture of texas and Caroline Mcarthy was raised in the anti-gun culture of the northeast?

Perhaps, but there’s got to be something more. What could account for so many people in places like the northeast to support a policy that has failed in every appreciable measure?

Could it be that Suzanna Gratia Hupp simply has a lot more common sense?

The fact is that no law could ever stop a Colin Ferguson, or a George Hennard from getting guns and doing what they did, but a single armed passenger on that LIRR train, or in Luby’s on either of those days, may have made all the difference in the world.

That’s how lives are saved, by allowing law-abiding citizens to act.

Just as merely criminalizing murder doesn’t stop murders, criminalizing gun ownership doesn’t stop gun crimes.

You know what does?

Self-defense...and an armed populace.