Another Gun Control Post

So there was a post on the Book of Faces asking why gun owners aren’t willing to accept any “lesser” gun control. After all, if we’re not willing to “contribute to the conversation” then we have only ourselves to blame if others make the decisions for us.

I pointed out that we were contributing. He just didn’t like the answers. I then followed up with the following:

No gun laws actually accomplish the stated goals. They do not make people safer. They do not stop criminals. What purpose does a “small” (call it “reasonable” or “common sense” however much you want) regulation serve if it doesn’t stop criminals from getting and using guns if they want them? How can anything other than an absolute, total prohibition on firearms even make a dent in criminal use of guns? NBC (I believe it was) in the late 80’s did a “special” where they traced a single gun through its use in various crimes before it was finally recovered by police. This one gun was used in dozens of crimes. Now, NBC’s purpose in that was to imply how dangerous guns were if even one could lead to so much crime. What they actually showed, however, was how few guns are able to serve criminal uses. If one gun can be used in a dozen different crimes, then take that number of crimes and divide by a dozen to see how many guns are necessary to supply that.

If only 0.01% of guns end up in criminal hands, that’s sufficient to supply all the criminal uses everywhere. Get rid of 90% of the guns and you’re still talking 0.1% necessary to provide for all criminal uses.

I have my doubts whether even complete prohibition could realistically make a dent in criminal uses of guns. Guns can be stolen from police. Corrupt cops–and there are always some in the most honest of departments–can “lose” guns from evidence (it already happens with drugs…and guns). Guns are simply too easy to make, or to smuggle. Hell, we can’t make a dent in the illegal drug trade and those are complex biochemicals that can be sniffed out and distinguished from other things. Guns are metal and plastic, indistinguishable from other metal and plastic except for the shape of the pieces. You can’t “sniff them out” you’d have to physically inspect everything which might contain guns or gun parts (and, again, that does nothing to stop homemade guns.

So, even a complete prohibition is unlikely to stop the illegal uses of guns, therefore it’s certain that anything less will not.

And if you can’t stop, or even significantly slow, the illegal uses of guns with these “reasonable gun control” measures then what’s the point? Why waste the resources making and enforcing gun laws when those resources can instead be used on things that might actually affect crime?

That’s leaving aside that the biggest killer of people is not criminals but governments. It would take about 6000 years of criminal murders–using the highest ever year total in the US–to equal the number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th century. I’m not talking about people killed by foreign powers in war. People. Killed. By. Their. Own. Governments.

It has been said that with private gun ownership you will have tragedies. Without it, you will have genocides.

You might claim that we’re past that. Maybe. But on what do you truly base that? History doesn’t support such a claim. The twentieth century, after all, wasn’t that long ago. Would you claim that democracy and popular will render such things impossible? Have you even opened a history book? The pogroms and expulsions against Jews all through Europe were popular with the majority non-Jewish population. The Armenian genocide was popular among the Turkish majority. The Holodomor was popular among the non kulaks. The Trail of Tears was popular among the white majority (why, no, I don’t exempt my own country from being susceptible to abuse–neither did the folk who founded it; thus the 2nd Amendment). “Democracy” without restrictions is simply everyone picking on the weird kid–and I’ve always been “the weird kid” so I tend to take that kind of personally.

So, these lesser gun controls, these “reasonable gun controls” simply will not accomplish their stated goals. They cannot accomplish those goals. And when they fail, what then? Have proponents of “reasonable gun control” ever admitted “this isn’t working. We need to step back and try something else?” Even once.

Don’t bother answering. That’s a rhetorical question. The answer is “no, never.” Instead, what they do is double down. Their “reasonable gun control” failed to achieve its objective so, instead of rolling it back and trying something else to deal with the problem, they insist that the “answer” is yet more gun control. Another “reasonable” (or so they claim) restriction using the previous one as a stepping stone. And when that one fails, as it must, they put forward another. And another. And another. There is no stopping point short of complete prohibition. And, indeed, if you catch big proponents of “reasonable gun control” in an unguarded moment they’ll admit it, that prohibition of privately owned firearms is the goal.

So, no, there is no level of gun control that is acceptable because it doesn’t work for the stated goal and the unstated goal is reprehensible.

10 thoughts on “Another Gun Control Post”

  1. Ah, but we HAVE construbted to the conversation. The other side just isn’t listening. We said we want a rollback of all the laws, because they don’t work, and we said that you are negotiating in bad faith because no law is ever enough, and you’re incrementally marching us to Hell.

    Whether it’s an incremental march or a full-on route march with full pack, we’re still ending up in Hell. We see through you, and we’re done playing your game. Now it’s time for YOU to play OUR game. Roll it back. Get rid of ALL the laws. Violent crime wasn’t a big problem UNTIL you decided to start passing laws in 1968 (not counting NFA34 and the following act in ’38,) and you MADE it a problem. It got worse because you kept taking away our ability to resist.

    Your approach isn’t working, and we keep telling you that. You don’t listen to us. We present facts and figures to PROVE that your approach isn’t working. You don’t listen to us. We make counteroffers. You don’t listen to us.

    So, we’re through. We’re done negotiating. This is apparently an “all or nothing” fight – and we’ve decided that we want it ALL If you’re going to keep negotiating in bad faith, we’re just going to eject you from the room. The dishonourable have no place here.



  2. I’m a reasonable man and open to compromise. The other side hates guns and doesn’t want them around. That’s fine. They can stop themselves from purchasing a gun and we’ll leave it at that. But in return, they have no right to tell me that I cannot buy a gun.

    Win/Win from where I’m standing.


    1. I’m open to compromise:
      Them: “But…nukes.”
      Me: “Okay, I’m open to compromise. Amend the Constitution properly (2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, or a convention of States called by 2/3 of State Legislatures, to propose an Amendment, then 3/4 of State Legislatures to ratify it) to exclude Nukes from being among the arms protected by the 2nd. See, I can be reasonable.”


      1. There is a mechanism in place to change the rule. Use the mechanism. If you cannot get your rule change put through using the mechanism that was thoughtfully put in place, then your rule change is obviously /not/ /wanted/. Go away, and try again in 50 years or so, so you can do it with the taste of failure afresh (instead of trying to rinse the taste of the last failure out of your mouth while you’re taking a bite of the new.)


  3. 23,000+ “reasonable” gun laws so far. Could someone please figure out how many we need, then we’ll know when we are close.

    On a related topic, my sister, who dislikes guns and knows nothing about them has recently started spouting off about the Rittenhouse shooting, and how the second dead Antifa member and the “medic” who got shot in the arm, were heroes, because that’s what heroes do. They try to take guns away from people who are killing people. No awareness that taking the gun away from someone who just defended themselves from an attacking mob is the exact wrong thing to do.


  4. “The Trail of Tears was popular among the white majority”

    Did I read somewhere recently that the leaders of the Cherokee Nation took steamboats while sending their black slaves to walk with the rest of the people? Or is that one of those made up and posted on the internet stories?


    1. Whether you read that or not, only you can answer. 😉 As for what happened, I don’t know. However, the thing to note is that history, real history, is messy. Folk want to paint folk in the past as “good guys” and “bad guys”, with “bad guys” being anyone who isn’t completely on board with their “modern” sensibilities (and generally lacking the self awareness to grasp that _they_ will be “bad guys” by that standard to people of the future because only ultimate hubris can lead one to think that they are completely in accord with whatever future mores will be). Folk neglect to consider the options and constraints available to people in the past which could lead to things like someone being personally opposed to slavery while actually owning slaves because the law did not allow for manumission and any “freed” slave could simply be rounded up and handed off to someone else. Or perhaps, having seen some slave revolts a person could oppose slavery but fear the result of a too-hasty elimination of it, a result that could lead to revenge violence to the point of wholesale slaughter. It’s easy for smug 21st century folk to say “well, they deserved it” when it’s not them and their neighbors who would be on the receiving end of musket balls and pointy farming implements. Or that things that are obvious to us–that racial differences are truly trivial in the grand scheme of things–are not quite so obvious to folk making first steps toward the concept of “equal under the law”. But, no, they didn’t jump straight to how a 21st century millennial thinks things should be and so they were evil incarnate. The fact that they set in motion events that led to the greatest birth of freedom the world has ever known completely escapes them.

      And I think I’ve digressed enough here.


      1. I’ve been saying since this whole revisionist mess started – “Anyone viewing history through the lens of now does both history and now a grave disservice.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: