Every place in the world that’s tried to ban guns… has seen big increases in murder rates. You’d think at least one time, some place, when they banned guns, murder rates would go down. But that hasn’t been the case.
John Lott
August 5, 2015
Gun Control Lies
[See also Just one question.
You have to ask: If gun control doesn’t make society safer then just what is the real reason they want to ban guns? Other than stupidity and ignorance the only answer that makes sense to me is that they want to do something to people which the people wouldn’t want done to them.—Joe]
“Other than stupidity and ignorance the only answer that makes sense to me is that they want to do something to people which the people wouldn’t want done to them.”
Don’t discount a blend of all three. The latter primarily for the main pushers of citizen disarmament, and the first two for their useful (useless?) idiot followers.
There’s also spite.
Gun control has a huge class-war side to it. Many of the laws are setup to disarm the proles while letting the king’s friends retain armsmen.
And that’s not *just* to make the proles easier to push around. It’s also to “put them in their place”. And a means of signaling for social climbers to go “See! I’m not one of those people; I’m enlightened like you!”
Ah yes; the distinction between perpetrators and the duped. And yes; they do think differently, but I say the distinction is academic. Both love lies and hate the truth.
Furthermore, the duped are the ones who’ll actually, physically fight you. The perpetrators will hide safely at a distance while the duped will faithfully perform their bidding. One could say that the duped are far more dangerous than the ones who know they’re motivated by hate, making up lies– The duped actually believe it.
It’s worth remembering that the first gun control laws were aimed at newly freed blacks. The next ones were aimed at immigrants.
Since time immemorial, the one consistent difference between a freeman and a slave is that a freeman was armed and a slave was forbidden to be.
“You’d think at least one time, some place, when they banned guns, murder rates would go down.”
No I wouldn’t. That’s like saying that if we required all drivers to be intoxicated at all times, you’d think we’d have fewer traffic fatalities, or that if we banned door locks, fire extinguishers and alarm systems, you’d think that at least somewhere there’d be a drop in fire damage and robberies. Nor would I think that if we banned helmets there’d be a reduction in head injuries.
I think the main word in gun control is the word CONTROL,
I think that falls under the general description of “they want to do something to people which the people wouldn’t want done to them”.
There is also gun control as a positional good. By supporting the disarming of peaceable citizens, gun-control advocates can view themselves as morally superior to the rest of us. After all, they can keep their hands clean, while armed agents of the state commit violence (to disarm peaceable citizens) on their behalf.
Let’s not forget naivete. Some people genuinely do think that Guns Are Bad (while forgetting that police are armed), and that gun control may not get rid of ALL the guns, but at least we’re doing something about the problem! (Yes, we’re making it worse.)
I used to think that way. I suppose Lyle would classify such people under the “dupes”.
It seems intuitive, after a while, that new laws affect only the law-abiding, and that disarming the law-abiding without doing anything about the lawless will simply embolden the lawless, thereby increasing violent crime. But it’s worth remembering that this is far from intuitive to some.