Skip to comments.Three Reasons Gun Control Advocates Donít Want You to Have A Gun
Posted on 05/03/2011 5:17:30 PM PDT by marktwain
If youre wondering why the gun control community favors civilian disarmament, its all about personal responsibility. They dont believe that Americans are responsible enough to own a gun. Why? Ive got a simple list. But before I trot-out the terrible troika of gun grabbing gibberish, I want to highlight an important point: contrary to their public protestations about good vs. bad gun owners, gun control advocates do want to grab your guns. But they know they cant. And not just because the Supreme Court says they cant.
Gun control advocates know there are several million Ted Nugent-types ready to do the cold dead hands thing. So they focus their efforts on preventing newbies from tooling up. By discouraging (to say the least) new firearms owners, they can grab the guns before theyre sold. You might even call gun control advocates gun abortionists, but I couldnt possibly comment.
In this they have been ridiculously successful. Although gun rights are on a roll, lets not forget that were only now emerging from a period where gun control advocates ruled the day. You still cant carry a concealed weapon in Illinois. New York? New Jersey? Fuhgeddaboutit. My City of Providence Conceal Carry Permit reads number 20. As in twenty ever.
To stop American citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, gun control activists have a simple message: guns are dangerous. Dangerous for unarmed civilians. Dangerous for armed civilians. Dangerous for children. Dangerous for police. Dangerous for society. Too dangerous for you!
Heres the problem: guns are dangerous. If they werent dangerous they wouldnt exist. Whats more, people get shot. By guns. Whats worse, dangerous people use them. Criminal, mentally deranged and stupid people. Theres no denying this fact. But there is a little matter of context.
Its your job as a gun owner to provide that context for people who dont own guns, or own them and support gun control anyway. To do that, you have to counter the three big lies that gun control advocates use to make their case that guns are too dangerous for civilians. Lies that are absorbed by people whove never really thought about it. The fibs are as follows . . .
1. People are too stupid to own a gun
Its certainly true that some people are too stupid to own firearms. TTAG has a whole categorys worth of Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day posts to prove the point. In general, nothing could be further from the truth.
At the risk of insulting the intelligence of the people who insult the intelligence of existing and potential gun owners, shooting a firearm is a relative simple business. You put the bullets in (the hard part), you aim the gun and pull the trigger. If you dont pull the trigger . . . nothing happens.
Statistics show that firearms are no more dangerous than swimming pools, automobiles and (in the case of children) plastic bags. Thats before you exclude firearms-related suicides and gun crimes committed by gang bangers. My local gun rangeopen to the publicpays less than a thousand dollars a month for insurance coverage.
The fact that there are tens of millions of gun owners walking around whove never shot themselves or another human being also attests to the simplicity and inherent safety of firearms ownership. The general public may not shoot well, but they get it: be careful with guns. Not because theyre smart. Because theyre smart enough.
If youre fighting this people are too dumb to own a gun meme, keep in mind that gun control advocates are, like gun rights advocates, a highly educated group of people. The key difference: gun grabbers are elitists. [This is the main reasons gun control found so much favor over the last century. Elitists controlled the media.]
The easiest way to counter the argument: ask a simple series of questions. Do you think the average person is intelligent enough to handle poisonous cleaning chemicals? Use a knife to cut their foodand not use it to stab themselves or others? Drive a car? The last one may be a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean.
2. People are too mentally unstable to own a gun
Remember Emotional Intelligence? I doubt gun control advocates read the book. But they have extrapolated a general principle from the core proposition: most people are emotionally retarded. In other words, the average person is prone to flipping out, grabbing a gun (if we allow them to own one) and shooting someone. Or a bunch of someones.
Yup, it happens. But tens of thousands of mentally disturbed people arent shooting people on a regular basis (or at all, for that matter). Even if there were tens of thousands of mentally challenged murderers, that would still represent a fraction of the total U.S. population. Spree killings are so rare that the President of the United States felt obliged to fly our 747 to Arizona to personally praise the survivors of a recent massacre.
Some gun control advocates reckon that anyone who shoots anyone is mentally challenged. Ipso facto. The average American may not know Latin, but they know that most people who shoot people are criminals. Not mentally ill individuals off their meds struggling with inner demons. Bad guys.
Again it does happen. But whacko, serial and spree killings dont lead to new gun control measures because Americans know an aberration when they see one. Theres the fundamental flaw in the gun grabbers Were All One Step From Madness argument: very few people have had any direct contact with someone whos gone off the rails and shot someone. And thats because, statistically speaking, it doesnt happen.
Ultimately, thankfully, personal experience trumps media. Equally important, the fear of psycho killers is greater than the fear of someone becoming one. Besides, how do you counter a madman? With criminals you can call the cops or negotiate. (At least in theory.) With a nut-job you need . . . a gun. Hence Arizonas determination not to do a damn thing about gun control after the Loughner killings.
The best way to counter the Gun Control as Anti-Flip Out meme: make it personal. Force gun control advocates to confront their elitism. I own a gun. If I got really angry or really sad, do you think Id shoot (name family members)? So why am I so different from other gun owners? I dont think I am, and I dont think you can devise a law that stop the crazies without stopping the rest of us. Do you?
By this point, a gun control advocate may start parroting the If One Life is Saved argument. Basically, theyre asking you to jettison the very thing that they claim to promote: common sense. Common sense says life is about balancing risk with reward. A fraction of a fraction of the total population of American children may shoot themselves with Daddys gun, but society is generally safer from criminals when its law-abiding citizens are armed.
Or is it? The final argument . . .
3. Gun owners are trigger-happy
Gun control advocates (like our very own MikeB30200) see gun owners as wanna-be or proto-vigilantes. Theyre just itching to take the law into their own hands at the right end of a gun. The supposed danger: if you let a large number of average people own guns, theyll forgo their reliance on civility and the criminal justice system and use their firearms willy-nilly. Lets call it The Return of the Wild West (ROTWW).
Admittedly, armed rough justice is not an unknown occurrenceespecially where it overlaps with the aforementioned mental instability. But as dramatic as it isand what could be more dramatic than a road rage gunfight or a neighbor-on-neighbor shootingits statistically meaningless. UNLESS were talking about legal armed self-defense . . .
Its anybodys guess how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) go down in the US of A. Some say millions. It could be less. Or more. Many if not most gun owners never tell the police when they brandish their weapon to successfully thwart a bad guygiven that doing so runs the very real risk of firearms confiscation and banning.
Its also true that civilians wound and kill more bad guys than cops. But very few of the gun owners who do so go to jail for so doing. Either the court system is cutting gun owners too much slack (a complaint that gun control advocates make on a regular basis), or the shooters werent trigger happy. Anyone with an ounce of faith in our legal systemthe same system that gun grabbers ask citizens to trustwill go with the latter.
Distilling this [non]issue is simple enough: whats the danger of a gun owner killing the wrong person? For the last time in this screed, you can round down the odds of falling afoul of a trigger-happy gun owner down to zero. Unless youre a criminal trying to kill or seriously injure the gun owner. In that case, if it works out in favor of the gun owner, Id call them relieved rather than happy.
Anyway, even without considering the benefits of an armed, law-abiding population (i.e. deterrence), countering this last, extremely feeble supposition is childs play. Do you think that the average person wants to shoot someone? If I gave you a gun, would you want to shoot someone?
The bottom line: gun control advocates view the common man as stupid, emotionally unstable and aggressive. In this they are wrong. They understand that they must hide this elitism (perhaps even from themselves) to protect their cause. For once its exposed, its reviled. And their argument with it. Which is how it should be. But dont expect them to reveal/confront their true colors without your help. It all starts with a simple question. Do you believe the average American is responsible enough to own a gun?
I am convinced, though, that the main push for gun control is *not* that the elite believe that most people are too stupid to have guns. I believe that the main push for gun control is that the elite are afraid of what the people can do, if they have guns, and the elite attempt to do what the "Pro(re)gressive" elite want to do, which is exert ever more tight controls on everyone else's life.
I call them the "Pro(re)gressive" elite, because their ideas are really very regressive, wanting to move us back to the era of unlimited governmental power. That is so 1920's and 30's.
OK, let's use Liberal "logic" on some other Rights to get rid of and see how they like it:
15th & 19th Amendment:
1. Women & minorities are too stupid to vote
2. Women & minorities are too mentally unstable to vote
3. Women & minorites are vote-happy
1. People are too stupid to have privacy
2. People are too mentally unstable to have privacy
3. People are privacy-happy
1. Slaves are too stupid to be free
2. Slaves are too mentally unstable to be free
3. Slaves are freedom-happy
Etc, etc, etc...
About the only that does make sense is the 16th Amendment:
1. Congress is too stupid to collect income taxes
2. Congress is too mentally unstable to have taxing authority
3. Congress is tax-happy
1) If you are armed, you don't need the collective to protect you
2) If you are armed the collective cannot easily control you.
. They dont believe that Americans are responsible enough to own a gun.
Wrong wrong wrong, because a free citizen with a gun threatens them and thier lunatic agenda, period! If your unarmed you can be controlled
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced !!
I forget who said it, but it was a great quote.
“God created man, and Sam Colt made ‘em equal.”
Of course Heinlein’s quote also applies, “An armed society is a polite society.”
After reading an entire DU thread about gun regulation the other day (link posted on FR) I have concluded that the issue is just about settled in our favor (for now at least). The original poster wanted increased registration of weapons and ammo and was unanimously shouted down in over 100 replies. My heart grew three sizes that day.
And with respect to a lot of people, they're right. But so what? Even if they were right about everyone, and that's far from the case, rights are rights. Leftists prove daily that most journalists aren't sufficiently responsible to be trusted with the First Amendment, but we honor it anyway.
... and the one best reason I can think of to tell gun control advocates to shove it!
Wait till you see how “trigger happy” I get if the government tries to take my firearms!
Look closely at that Bolshevik poster:
The bolshies wanted not only guns turned in but swords and bayonets as well. Another communist poster exhorted,
“You can’t have those things, comrade. You must give them to the state.”
FWIW, I was deployed to Uzbekistan 2004-04. It was once part of the USSR. Uzbeks told me that illegal possession of firearms was more widespread than the former or current authorities would admit.
I would like to see all the “Pro(re)gressive” elites required to have tattooes or brandings so I would be sure never to protect them.
Maybe the guy on the left is just a sadist and is actually armed to the teeth.
Excellent article! Thanks for posting.
Couldn’t we just put warning labels on guns? I mean, seriously. How many folks quit ironing their clothes while they were wearing them or stopped standing on the top step of their ladders after those warning labels went on them?
The left loves gun control because they want the State to have a total monopoly on force. That way the State has a free hand to create “social justice”. I also think they fear the redneck counter-revolutionaries who live outside the cities and who love their guns and see owning one as part of an independent lifestyle, which of course is a thoughtcrime. Within the cities, the lefties fear the brown people who drive the crime stats, though they won’t admit this.
“good vs. bad gun owners” ?
This is such a line of BS. The leftist aka progressive gun haters have always tried to use this lie. Is a bad gun owner a criminal?