How gun control works

From Rolf:


As I have said before:

How long does it take the average high school dropout to find a way around the ban? Yeah, that’s right, Einstein. The average high school dropout can get all the recreational drugs they want within an hour anytime of the day, any day of the week. So just how effective you think a background check would be in reducing the abuse of recreational drugs?

Now apply what you know about the recreational drug issue to firearms. A background check is totally pointless.

A similar argument can be made for nearly all gun control. Nearly all politicians know this. They have to have some objective other than reducing violent crime because it just doesn’t work and the data supports this conclusion.

Most people who have studied this believe the real objective is to increased the dependency on government and increase the political power of government officials. This line of reasoning can be extrapolated to “so they can implement a socialist state”. YMMV.


8 thoughts on “How gun control works

  1. So, I have to ask: why should this logic not be applied broadly? E.g:

    “Criminals don’t obey gun control laws, so you shouldn’t pass gun control laws.”
    “Criminals don’t obey laws, so you shouldn’t pass laws.”

    What is it about adding “gun control” that makes this assertion logical? I’m not seeing it.

    • Laws punish people after the criminal act. If the criminal act has no victim, such as selling/giving a gun to your cousin you have known to be law abiding for decades, then you end up hassling, at best and incarcerating at worst, innocent people. If there is a victim who has suffered injury (including the “injury” of property loss) then by all means make it illegal and punish the perpetrator.

      There is little point (and I could even make a case for no point) in passing laws specific to guns if the intent is to reduce violent crime. You make ‘injury’ to others illegal and punish people no matter what the means. Those laws already exist and have existed for hundreds/thousands of years. Adding new laws specific to guns do not, and cannot, result in a measureable reduction in ‘injury’ to innocent people. Hence, gun laws are at best well intentioned stupidity, and worst case, prevent people from defending themselves against violent criminals (including criminal governments intent on genocide).

    • it’s already against the law to kill people randomly,any violence is already in violation of any penal codes ,method or means to perfom the crime is merely commentary ,to be parced over for political manipulation of the frightened ….or to simplify it’s all about the the MAN keepin’ the people down regardless of race or income,sounds so ’60s

    • The reason is is gun control is not the same as other types of laws. Most laws restrict a person’s Behavior not an object. A gun law is more like a Prohibition. If a criminal wants to commit a crime he does not want his name on the weapon. He will steal or purchase it from the black market of guns which has been circulating for many years. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens in most part. Politicians have stated that none of the laws passed will prevent the shootings that have occurred. So if you state publicly that you know the laws you’re passing will not stop the crime then what other reason is there for passing those laws? Most prohibitions against substances or items do not have an Amendment of the Constitution protecting it. Most states are politicians outright ignore or refuse to accept the Second Amendment. I know that outright Banning guns is unconstitutional. Based on prior Supreme Court rulings. So they are restricting weapons to only certain classes of people or groups of society. Taking away people’s second amendment rights.

      • TIM – Very well said. I like you do not understand how HONOR, TRUTH, INTEGRITY, AND DOING WHAT IS RIGHT has been taken away by Politicians for their own agendas or those of a political party, especially when it comes to Constitutional issues of the Rights of The People. Hope some of them wake up now that our president is doing all he can to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

  2. Given the similarity of control laws, guns and drugs should be treated the same, not opposite:
    – Illegal drugs are widely used, so ‘people’ say the laws aren’t and must be repealed
    – Guns are occasionally misused and the existing laws aren’t stopping it, so ‘people’ say the laws must be stronger and enforced more harshly.
    Note that ‘people’ indicates the same group of attention getting loud mouths.

    I’ve got a compromise proposal for Congress: reduce gun laws in exchange for reducing drug laws. I bet if it were introduced, it would go exactly nowhere.

  3. I sent the following thoughts to President Trump: TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT TRUMP. During a view of the Internet I found an article where the new Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy is going to reverse the law allowing citizens with Concealed Permits to carry a firearm allowed by former Governor Chris Christie. The thought I had is if that happens in a State/County/City/Town it then falls on the State, etc. to provide protection for its citizens to prevent violence against the citizens – that means an officer on each block, 24 hours/day, 365 days a year and in the country areas an officer for each farm, small groups of houses again 24 hours/day, 365 days each year, or until honest law abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves from criminals and violence until the police/authorities arrive. Permits will be allowed for HONEST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, who pass background checks, proficiency with firearms certification, and are American Citizens. As a 20 year retired active duty veteran I to this day believe in my OATH TO PROTECT AMERICA AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC. Thank you for considering my thoughts.


Comments are closed.