Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Let's talk guns II

     In my last post I established guns are the best tool any person can use to defend their life, liberty, family and property. That is why they are used by the millions; by cops, bureaucrats, politicians and soldiers. Fact: if there was a better tool they would be using it. Yet it is unconscionable and hypocritical for them to try and deny ordinary people the same choice. But, not at all surprising.
     So let's look at what a gun ban really means. What will be the results of a broad-based gun ban, which is currently  being proposed by many politicians. If you support a gun ban what are you advocating?
First of all, why is this even an issue? We just had another psycho who murdered quite a few people, including many small children with semi-auto weapons. So the outcry is that we need to ban these types of weapons to prevent another instance like this from happening. And a lot of people jump to the immediate conclusion that a ban will prevent this from happening again.
     Will it? Will there be some unintended consequences?
O.k., Lets follow the path of logic and see where we end up. The stated goal is to prevent mass murders like this from happening again. The path to get to that goal means banning all semi-auto firearms from private ownership.
     A quick google search estimates 37.5 million of these in private hands. At a value of $500 each(my estimate) that is almost 19 billion dollars. Where should that huge sum come from? Whose pockets should be picked to pay for this new edict? Or would you advocate the government seizing them all without compensation, and not paying the market value to owners? Just to be clear, seizing them is theft which makes you an advocate for a crime to be committed against many of your fellow citizens. But maybe that doesn't bother you because, "It is for the children," right?
     O.k. Lets go that route. Make them all illegal to own and demand gun owners turn them in without compensation ASAP or face the consequences. And what would those consequences be? What consequences exist for breaking any law? It starts out with a threat, then a fine or tax and then the level of violence is escalated until a miscreant(former responsible, law abiding person) submits, is thrown in a cage or is murdered. Yes, that is what a ban means.
     But wait a minute, You want to ban guns to prevent more violence and reduce murders, don't you? In the latest shooting 27 people, 28 counting the murderer are dead. What would the potential death(murder) toll be if millions, 18 million+ Americans(2 semi-autos owned per owner), are faced with this choice: Give up your property with or without any compensation and consequently give up the best tool that exists for self-defense or get thrown in a cage or get murdered? And incidentally and rather ironically the people who get sent out to enforce this new edict will be armed with what? Semi-auto and even full auto weapons. Why? Because they will be more than likely defending themselves from the violence they initiate and again, those are the best tools for the job. If it comes to a confiscation then we will have absolute proof the people need these weapons after all. The second amendment "loonies" will then be vindicated as you can't conceivably adequately defend yourself with a single shot or bolt action weapon when facing multiple attackers with semi-auto and full auto weapons.
     How many of those millions of Americans will just give up their chosen tools of self-defense, because other people who all have guns or are protected by others who have guns, say they should? Does that make any sense? And more importantly how many will refuse?   Violently refuse? 20%? If only 10% refuse that means at least 1.8 million won't comply? And 1% refusing would still mean 180,000+ armed people who haven't initiated any violence against anyone not complying. And these people now become targets of directed violence. That will end well, right?  And that is only people who own semi-autos; a group making up less than 15% of all gun ownership. 250 million+ total firearms are owned by private citizens. How many cops are there? About 800,00 total. How many will die enforcing this? Do you think less than 27 or 28 people will die as a result of a gun ban?       Seriously?
     Tens of thousands will die on both sides and that is a conservative estimate. Far more violence will come out of following this course than could ever be prevented. And all the tens of thousands of people who use a gun in self-defense every year will now become victims. And life as you know it will change dramatically. 
     Eliminating "gun free" zones is by far the most logical and economical solution to "sandy hook" type shootings.
A known and posted gun-free zone is an open invitation to all psychos who want to perpetrate havoc on innocents. If you don't think so post a big sign on your front door stating you are unarmed and don't believe in private gun ownership. Or better yet post a sign in your yard pointing to your neighbor stating they don't own guns. Bet you won't be very popular. Anybody with a brain would never do that as a solution to self-defense. Yet many of those same people send their kids to a place labeled as such. Is that logical?
     Ever heard of a mass shooting at a shooting range? Wonder why not? Tons of guns with large magazines there. How about at a gun show? Nope, hasn't happened there either.
     Guns equal freedom. If you don't value freedom don't expect a gun in anyone's hands to ever be used to defend you or your property.      You don't deserve it.

No comments: