Of the more than 57,763 restrictive gun laws called gun controls we know of, not one has made anyone safer, or one has reduced crime, and not one has reduced the incidence of politically motivated murders. Given that not one gun control law has produced the promised results, to cut crime, make people safer, or reduce politically motivated murders, perhaps it would be well to examine just what these wonderful laws that were going to eliminate crime, guarantee safety for all, and stop murders such as the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand actually do.
Given the facts, and that the facts are easy to obtain, why are we having this demand for gun control, a law that has never delivered on advocates promises, why the demand to add to the longest consecutive string of failures in human history?
August 31, 2017
Comment to A case for gun control
[Note: I corrected a few typos from the original.
Grizzled_Stranger is, almost for certain, asking a rhetorical question. As I have asked many times before, “Since we know gun control doesn’t make the general population safer, what is the real reason some people advocate for gun control?”
Most people these days know the answer. It’s about control, it’s not about public safety. Many people feel their own lives/minds are out of control and it makes them feel good if they can control something and/or someone, even it is other people and/or their property.
For others, they like the power of being able to control other people. People with guns are not nearly as easy to control as those without guns. These people have the same mindset as Vladimir Lenin.—Joe]
I think it may be even simpler than that. I believe it’s an emotional attachment, a bonding, or allegiance with the criminal class. Criminals hate the thought of armed victims, thus anyone allied with the criminal mindset hates the thought of armed victims. Criminals also hate the free, the self-motivated, the successful, the serious and the innocent.
Allegience would explain the whole thing, all the unresolvable assertions, the contradicting facts, the emotional reactions that defy logic, the inability to accept evidence contrary to a pre-determined conclusion, the totally partisan nature of the issue; everything.
It’s part of the package deal that goes with one’s allegiance to the dark side, or the “criminal mind” if you prefer.
Because that is so simple however, very few people will accept it. Cleverness, we believe, requires the ability to sort through complexity, and so the clever person will arrive at a conclusion that is difficult to understand. The truth is often so plain and simple that one’s ego will not permit him to believe it. He’ll get out the charts, the graphs, the trend analyses, history books, case law and statistics, and spend a decade making a case. It may eventually lead to the same general conclusion but it will use more complex terms to define it, and it will have thus satisfied the ego in the process.
Predictably, the strenuous method sometimes leads to that emotional bonding, through the process of pain, frustration and trauma, to the dark side. Examples will no doubt come mind. Everyone knows of the tragic case of John McCain, but some famous gun writers have “flipped” also.
The clever leftist will do essentially the same thing to support his position, though his tactic will be somewhat different. He will rely on the simplistic art of burying the truth in complexity. It is both simple and effective, but effective only on the suggestable and those already of the dark alliance. Noam Chomsky is an example, a master at that, and those of the dark alliance (criminal mind) see him as a genius.
“Most people these days know the answer. It’s about control, it’s not about public safety. ”
Democrats are dictator wannabes, that is why they want us disarmed. We stand in their way of total control of the citizenry.