Why gun owners are angry

I actually did the outline for this post in January of 2009 but it wasn’t until I read something Sebastian posted that I decided to procrastinate on something other than this post.

There are many reasons why gun owners are angry. Let me enumerate a few of them (I actually removed about a third of the items from my outline in the interests of time and space):

Goldilocks guns

I’ve blogged about this before. The anti-gun people want to outlaw guns that are “small and easily hidden”. They want to outlaw guns that are large and powerful. They want to outlaw guns that are “deadly accurate”. They want to outlaw guns that can be used for “spray shooting from the hip”.

You would think that perhaps a gun that fires an intermediate cartridge and is of medium weight and is not easily hidden would be acceptable to them. Nope. Such a gun was called an “assault rifle” by the Germans during WWII. The anti-gun people, utilizing their talent for twisting words and preying on the ability of the public to be easily confused, banned “assault weapons”.

This is why we sometimes talk about Goldilocks Gun Control (more here). It’s like the story Goldilocks and the Three Bears with a twist. There are guns the anti-gun people think are too big and too small, but there aren’t any guns that are “just right”.

What if the government treated religions like that? Are some sects of Catholicism or Judaism too orthodox? Or maybe the Baptists are too fundamentalist. Are their religions too modern or “new age”?

These are specific enumerated rights and our public servants have not been given constitutional power to take guns or religion, in common use, away from the people.

Attempting to take away something that has been guaranteed by the U.S. Government has a tendency to make the victim angry. If they don’t want us to be angry they should stop doing things like this.

The SKS is accurate, the “gun show loophole”, and other lies

I’ve blogged about this before. In the article I quoted in that link every statement of fact was wrong yet the press published it as if it were completely true. The anti-gun people tell lie after lie after lie, after lie, after lie. Even when they tell the truth it is only half-truths (see also herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). One might reasonable think they are merely ignorant but if that were true you would not find that in each and every case the half-truth benefits their case. And still the press believes them!

Constantly lying about the law, firearms, and gun owners has a tendency to make gun owners angry. If they don’t want us to be angry they should stop lying.

1000 round arsenals

To anti-gun people and the press even a hundred rounds of ammunition found in the trunk of a car or in someone’s home is cause for concern. If the police decide to search someone’s car or home the finding of a few hundred rounds of ammunition it nearly takes the breath away from the talking heads in the media. If it was within a few blocks of a school they make sure the implication is that each one of those rounds could, and should, be translated into the intent of the gun owner was to kill at least that many children.

This fascination with the number of rounds of ammo reached the point that in 1994 the U.S. Congress was contemplating requiring an Arsenal License for people that had more than 1000 rounds of ammunition.

I’ve got news for these clueless bigots. When I shoot in a pistol match I carry about 80 rounds in magazines on my belt. When I go to the local pistol match the minimum number, assuming zero misses, of rounds needed is 150. Typically I would take at least 300 for each gun that I was going to shoot. If I am going to the range for practice it is about 400 rounds per handgun and 100 for a rifle. If I were to go to a regional match I would take at least 1000 per gun. If I were to attend a weekend class the minimum round count is typically about 1500.

The anti-gun proponents might claim that I am somewhat out of the ordinary in my ammunition consumption. They might point out someone that has been hunting every year for a decade and has always brought home their deer and is still working on their first box of twenty rounds. If someone needs 100 rounds to go hunting they shouldn’t be hunting they might say.

It’s not about hunting. It’s about being the best you can be at shooting fast and accurately. And I’m not particularly special in my ammo needs. When the other gun bloggers and I went to Blackwater Todd Jarrett told us he had 250 or 300 thousand rounds of loaded ammo and another 650,000 rounds of components. Nearly a 1,000,000 rounds in the hands of one consumer is unusual. But 1000 rounds is not.

1000 rounds and they want to require a special license? I can put 1000 rounds of .22 LR in my coat pockets. Do I need to license my coat?

If they don’t want us to be angry they should stop the talk of requiring expensive and hassle intensive requirements for common everyday activities.

Licenses, regulation, and restrictions

What if the government demanded that all homosexuals be registered with the state? How about all Muslims, Catholics, or Jews? Or how about mixed race couples?

Here’s how it might work: If you wanted to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex the state required you to obtain a SSIC (Same Sex Identification Card), get eight hours of training, and pay $50 every three years to renew your license.

Do you think that might make a few people angry? Do you think people might claim that was unconstitutional? If you answered yes to both those questions then congratulations! You have an I.Q. above room temperature!

That is what gun owners have to put up in many states in order exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

It gets worse. Continuing the same analogy you wouldn’t be allowed to have a relationship with someone that was too fat or too skinny. And if they were of above average “capacity” they would be banned from having a relationship with anyone but a government employee.

And of course just because you have the license doesn’t mean you could actually have any contact with your loved one outside of your home. Assuming the local government where you lived “allowed” you to have the relationship you would have worry about the ever changing laws in the next city and the neighboring states. Your SSIC is valid only in a few states and even then it could change at any time. And it is your responsibility to make sure all your paperwork (if it is even possible to get the proper paperwork) is in order.

And to top it off many simple, victimless activities that of no consequence in one jurisdiction are a felony in another.

Then assuming you have successfully navigated all the government restrictions you still have to worry about which businesses are willing to do take your money when you just want to have a bite to eat or a cup of coffee. And all the people that want people of your kind all killed has to weigh on your mind as well.

If they don’t want us to be angry they should give the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same respect they give the specific enumerated right to freedom of association.

Registration of guns

I don’t think I have ever seen a fictional cop show on television where firearms were not registered. They just assume that is the way it is and that is the way it should be. Fortunately that is not the case except for a handful of states. But the media creates an expectation that it is perfectly normal for all guns to be registered and the owners licensed.

Of what benefit is it for guns to be registered? I’ve blogged about this many, times before. It is exceedingly costly and contrary to what you see on T.V. and at the movies it has near zero impact on solving crimes. So why do the anti-gun people still insist on gun registration? It turns out it is good for something–Confiscation.

If they don’t want us to be angry they should stop trying to register firearms when we all know the only “benefit” of firearm registration is the eventual confiscation of those firearms.

One gun a month

Who needs to buy more than one Bible a month? Why do Bible owners get all upset about the minor inconvenience of restricting people to just one Bible a month? It would cut down on trafficking of Bibles from states with lax Bible laws to those with strict Bible laws.

Never mind that the only way to make sure someone only buys one Bible a month is if all Bible transactions are recorded and each Bible is registered.

If they don’t want us to be angry they should treat firearms ownership like Bible ownership. It’s an essential part of exercising a specific enumerated right and the government has no constitutional authority or business in restricting sales any more than they do for the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or the Communist Manifesto.

Safety isn’t the issue

If there were a very clear correlation between highly restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime, suicide, and/or accidental injury or death by gunshot then we could have a meaningful discussion about the merits of firearm regulation. But despite over a 100 years of gun regulation in this country there still isn’t any conclusive data any of the gun laws have improved public safety in any of the instances where they have been implemented.

If they don’t want us to be angry they should be able to demonstrate a benefit or tell us the real reason for infringing on this specific enumerated right.

Self-defensive–the most basic of human rights

There is no right more universal than the right of self-defense. Every creature for all time has claimed the right of self-defense. It is the most basic and most important of all rights.

Despite the right of self-defense being so universal the anti-gun people want to remove the most effective tools of self-defense from the people that need them the most. Removing the tools of self-defense from the general population completely changes the relationship between government and the individual. It is like the farmer that dehorns his cattle. He does that to prevent them for hurting each other in fights. But then he takes responsibility for their defense from predators. He provides their health care, their food, and manages their reproduction. He also neuters nearly all the males and slaughters them as he sees fit. That is not a functional model for a free society.

If they don’t want us to be angry they must stop treating us like cattle.

Prevention

Who could possibly have a problem with an organization with a name like The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Right?

They don’t want to take your guns away, they just want to prevent gun violence.

What if their name were “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Slander” and they demanded free expression and speech be restricted to your own home, registration of anyone that wanted to exercise free speech–in their own homes, and you must submit to frequent police inspections of your home?

Oh, but they say, free speech does have restrictions on it. You can’t legally falsely shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. True. But you aren’t prevented from doing so by having a state approved gag installed prior to entry of the theater. If you cause injury through the irresponsible exercise of your freedom you are punished for the irresponsible actions. The same should be true for firearms.

If they don’t want us to be angry they should stop trying to prevent us from exercising our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Harping on the harm and blind to the benefits

The anti-gun people completely ignore or dismiss the benefits of firearm ownership. They constantly remind us of the harm but that only tells part of the story. It’s another half-truth they tell to further their cause.

Comparing to other causes of death: There is one child killed with a gun for every one million+ guns in this country and there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential swimming pools. Similar comparison can be made for car ownership.

Pro-gun people recognize that firearms are sometimes used for evil purposes and that accidents happen as well as the many benefits. The anti-gun people only see solutions while we see trade-offs.

If they don’t want us to be angry they need to acknowledge gun ownership brings benefits to society not just hazards.

Penis jokes

Many anti-gun people claim that men who own firearms have small penises and are trying to compensate with a firearm. The examples are almost endless. One could make a strong case that many anti-gun people appear to be developmentally retarded at about age of nine or 10 where children make jokes and insults about bathroom activities, bodily wastes, and penises. There are numerous examples here, here, here, here, and here.

What if women who wanted the right to vote or for equal opportunities in the workplace were laughed at and told they were just experiencing some penis envy? Do you think that would result in some anger?

If they don’t want us to get angry they should grow up and discuss the topic seriously.

Conclusion

If other specific enumerated rights were treated like firearms ownership there would likely be riots in the streets. But gun owners haven’t rioted. They haven’t called for the murders of those that insulted them. Yet similar infringement on rights has or would likely cause a major social disruption. And despite remarkably good behavior under some extremely adverse circumstances the instances of gun owners striking out in anger at these abuses is extremely rare. And what do we get for this good behavior despite substantial reasons for being angry? They use that anger as further justification to infringe upon our rights.

I think of those people who claim our anger as reason for more infringement the say way as I would a child who murders his parents and then asks the judge for leniency in sentencing because he is an orphan. After their conviction under 18 USC 241 or 242 I think their sentences should be doubled because they brought the problem on themselves.

14 thoughts on “Why gun owners are angry

  1. Hear me out-

    I have a thought….ALL MEN NEED TO CUT YOUR PENISES OFF….this makes perfect sense if you “think” about it…

    1. It’s for the children. If men didn’t have a penis, the small percentage children being raped and molested would go to zilch. Disregard the other ways of forcibly violating someone, it’s not prudent to this conversation.

    2. It would cut down on global warming. Since we couldn’t reproduce naturally, there would be less children. Less children = less people. Less people = less global climate change.

    3. Only the high class and wealthy would be able to afford to have their wives artificially inseminated. Therefore, the common person couldn’t afford it. This would stop the average person from reproducing. We would have a much better caliber (like the pun?) of people. You know, the wealthy, the ones that could afford to have children, the average could not. Wait a minute- you’d need a special license to have children. Yeah, then the Government could regulate it for us. You could charge a fee for this right/ license to generate revenue. That way the common person couldn’t afford it. We don’t need the average citizen having children.

    4. Since only a few select people would have children, they would lock in the future for the world. They would (obviously) control the world in short time, since they were to only ones that would be around.

    5. Rape and sexual assaults would decline across the board…No one would have a penis, so no one would be raped. Again, disregard dildos, broom sticks, hamsters, fists, etc. We all know that there are no dildos in the world, so that would cease to be a problem.

    6. The pornography industry would come to a grinding halt. No penis, no sex. After all, since the religious groups all (just go with this for the sake of my “theory”) dictate that sex is for procreation only, sex is only had via missionary position. Everyone knows that the penis is the cause of love. Love = sex, since people only have it with their significant others.

    7. It would be easy to accomplish this. You simply make it a law, and men worldwide would just voluntarily, without any fight, cut their penises off. After all, if it is a law, everyone would be on board. Then you can send special teams door to door to hold an inspection to make sure that all penises are gone.

    What say you, the fine “members” of the internet?

    If penises are outlawed, only outlaws will have penises…

  2. I don’t see any gun owners who see guns and automatically think of a penis; if they did, I assume it would be an indication of possibly unsafe firearm handling. However, it is much, much more disturbing that anti-gunners see their own penises and immediately think of deadly weapons. I have to conclude that they are prone to rape-in which case disarming their female victims makes perfect sense.

  3. Seeing how the Kennedys and the Clintons were way out front on gun control activism, Ken may have a point.

  4. Mark; I’d tell you not to be giving the left any ideas, but the National Socialists were actually doing very similar things not too long ago.

    Joe; fabulous post. Probably one of the best ever, but you should go through and do some syntax editing.

    I would point out too, that if people don’t want us angry they shouldn’t have been killing people for suspected firearms violations. If they don’t want gun owners mad, they should release their political prisoners (those convicted of non-violent, technical firearms violations. If they don’t want us mad, they should stop destroying gun manufacturers and retailers who’ve done nothing more serious than made some technical paperwork errors.

    I’d also point out how the left treats a “right” that they like, thereby demonstrating their hypocrisy when they claim to respect the RKBA, but then go on to tell us how all rights properly have restrictions, or that states and localities have the “right” to make their own restrictions. If they don’t want us to get angry, they can show some tiny little bit of intellectual consistency once in a while.

  5. Wonderful, Joe, and I concur, but I recommend a bit of reparative proofreading. I caught some spelling errors. Sorry, it’s my inner Autie being annoying.

  6. I agree, Joe. This is well thought out and persuasive. If you could shorten it I’ll bet you could get it published as an editorial somewhere — I’m thinking about that Salem, Oregon newspaper that that Canadian anti-gun guy has published in. Actually for that you might not have to shorten it at all.

  7. So don’t just tell me I have errors. Tell me what the errors are! Send me an email at blog AT joehuffman.org

    I did catch a few things this afternoon but apparently I didn’t catch them all.

    Thanks.

  8. Good points and clear style, I like it.

    About the automobiles comparison, it may be useful to point out that probably at least half, if not more, of all driving is for non-essential purposes. This defeats the obvious rejoinder that “driving is daily necessity but guns aren’t”. How would people like to have all of their *unnecessary* driving eliminated by the state? How about having to file a driving plan for all non-essential (work and once/week to the store) driving?

    Also, why should suppressors be so heavily regulated? Should I have to have a very loud car, so pedestrians and everyone else will know I’m driving?

  9. Thanks for a great post Joe. As an activist these are all weights that I know a lot of people carry and it’s cathartic to see them all so concisely put in one handy post. I’ll be forwarding a link around now 😉

  10. Here’s one you forgot: THe slippery slope.

    Ever since the 1970’s, I remember a steady stream of gun control advocates defending their cause du jour by derinding any fears that ‘just this one’ measure would lead to more drastic controls as “fallacious slippery slope” arguements. Anyone who was concerned that registration would lead to confiscation, or that an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban would be slowly broadened to cover everything else too, or that a handgun control bill would lead to a de facto ban via ‘closing loopholes’ was just fearmongering because there was no ‘slippery slope’. Really.

    Which is what they said in Chicago, Washington DC, California, Masssachusetts, NYC…

    Which is why I get mad when I see someone proposing ‘common sense restrictions’, and claiming that ‘law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear’ because ‘we’re not gonna take away your guns’… because it never never turns out that way.

Comments are closed.