Gun Crime makes me sick.
But just the “crime” part, not the “gun” part.
[color-box]If I hear someone say “gun crime” or “gun deaths” one more time, I’m gonna start puking up bearded Llama puppies. (Tweet This) Do you call the little ones puppies? I’m not sure, but I’ll be ejecting them from my mouth none-the-less.[/color-box]
The whole “about to vomit” thing comes from the fact that I can’t get my laparoscopic adjustable gastric band around the fact that…
[color-box]People believe that if you remove the “gun” part, the crimes won’t happen. Poof! They disappear! Kind of like Benghazi witnesses. (Tweet This)[/color-box]
To me, that’s like believing you can wave a magic scepter to vanquish all of the Pabst Blue Ribbon DUI’s. Do you think this would reduce the number of drunks on the road? Seriously? At best, it would simply improve the “quality” of drunkenness. More people would be drinking beer of better repute once PBR has been removed from the supply chain.
If you were paying attention to the PBR analogy, you probably figured out what happens when Pabst becomes extinct. People drink other types of beer. Like National Bohemian. Some might even switch to hard cider if they’re feeling really rambunctious.
Of course you could ban all the cheap beers, and cider too. But folks would simply start drinking the hard stuff.
[color-box]Heck, some people might even drop those little umbrellas in their cocktails – and that would be tragic indeed.[/color-box]
Do you see where this is going? It’s an endless game of trying to remove objects associated with bad behavior, while blissfuly ignoring the fact that behavior is, well, a behavioral problem. You can ban one object, only to have the problem continue with different objects. It reminds me of a dog chasing it’s tail. Or Harry Reid continuing to insist that people love Obamacare.
[color-box]I like to picture a miniature Michael Bloomberg (yeah, I know, he’s kind a Napoleonic mini-tyrant anyway) running in one of those hamster wheels. He runs, and runs, but never accomplishes anything. Run Mikey, run![/color-box]
And therein lies the problem.
Drunk driving is a behavioral problem. Removing one type of drunk juice from the equation solves nothing. Heck, we tried to remove all the drunk juice from the equation and that was a miserable failure. Can you say Prohibition? The behavior never went away.
[color-box]Crime is also a behavioral problem. Removing guns, or placing restrictions on them does not remove evil intent from the hearts of darkness.(Tweet This)[/color-box]
You can ban all the guns you want, but nothing positive has ever been accomplished by that. Australia did it. Crime went up. The UK did it. Crime went up.
I think the primary argument of the gun ban crowd is based on this flawed assumption. If you remove guns, then any crimes previously associated with guns will simply not happen.
This flawed assumption smacked me upside the head with a recent discussion with Phil the Australian. Phil seems to be a really nice guy, and I enjoyed a very polite and civil discussion with him online. I’d like to meet him over a good Australian beer. I hear they don’t really like Fosters over there — apparently it’s for tourists or something — so if we ever meet in person, I’ll trust him completely on his selection of beverage.
The basic gist of my part of the discussion was this.
Let’s suppose we live in Obama-Topia, a place with 100 murders per year, and 70 of those murders involve guns and 30 some other murderous weapon. Now, we get smart, and use our disappearing gun ray to remove all the guns. Yet, we still have 100 murders a year, but none of them involve guns. Yay! Zero gun deaths! But the people who have been “death-ed” by some means other than guns really don’t feel much better, do they?
My point is, both Australia and the UK have had either unchanged, or in the case of the UK, INCREASING murder rates since their major gun control initiatives. Guns or no guns. In fact, in the UK, the “gun related” murder rate has actually gone up since their gun ban. And of course their overall murder rate has gone UP since their gun ban. Australia’s has stayed relatively flat before, during and after.
[color-box]By the way, things like assault and forcible rape are 2 to 4 times more likely in the UK and Australia, respectively, as the US. Just sayin’ you know.(Tweet This)[/color-box]
Another side note, gun ownership in Australia is essentially back to where it was before the 96/97 buyback, yet the murder rate really hasn’t changed as a percentage. Huh? If you’re going to make major changes, you would expect the crime rates to change as a result, no?
So, if crime, murder, rape, assault, armed robbery et al. do not change regardless of the tools used, who cares?
[color-box]I want CRIME down. Not gun crime. Or electric stapler crime. Or Silly Putty crime.(Tweet This)[/color-box]
The only thing that’s relevant is the overall crime rate.
If I’m to be murdered, I certainly won’t consider it a moral victory if I’m murdered with something other than a gun. If I’m the murderee, then a gun control policy that ensures I was murdered with something other than a gun really doesn’t help me.
The flaw in the gun ban argument is that if you remove the guns (or knives, or electric staplers) then those types of crimes go away. They don’t.
That. Has. Never. Happened. Ever.
Because you can’t solve a behavioral problem without addressing the, ummm, behavior.
[color-box]Grab a copy of my free eBook, A Fistful of Shooting Tips. It will help make you a better shooter and the envy of your range in no time.[/color-box]
All very true! However, people always spin and spout “statistics” to suit their purposes and goals. Therefore, I argue the moral issue. People will never believe “your” statistics vs. “their” statistics. The greatest hope for liberty is to change how our adversaries think and, in time, convince them that their actions are wrong.
It is wrong to deny people the means to most efficaciously defend themselves from attack–regardless of whether they are defending themselves from murderers, rapists, muggers, or tyrannical government. It is wrong, regardless of the statistics. Denying someone this means (or infringing on their right to obtain, keep and bear the means) is the same as denying them life itself! This is why the right to keep and bear arms is protected from government infringement in the Bill of Rights. The word “infringement” provides the highest level of semantics protection possible (being only ink, it’s not very high), but the inalienable or natural right exists independent of any ink on paper like the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, or law of man.
Get over trying to change the libtard’s “minds”.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink;
You can lead a jackass to reason, but you can’t make it think.