Commentary - Gun Control
Weapons have two uses, as the means of physically subduing those without weapons and the means of defending yourself against those who would use weapons to subdue you. Historically, the effectiveness of a weapon depended on the skill and strength of the one using the weapon. In cases where the weapons were more or less equivalent, any contest of weapons ultimately was determined by the one with the greater skill and strength.
Weapons such as the bow and arrow, especially the crossbow were exceptions. In those cases, the contest between two individuals with the same weapon were much more even. In the case of the crossbow, the only advantage one combatant might have over the other would be skill.
The invention of the gun made any contest between individuals virtually equal for everyone. The individual with a gun was superior to anyone with any other weapon, and the equal of anyone else with a gun. Skill is a factor, but the gun made it possible for those even with very little skill to be able to learn and use a very effective weapon of defense.
In those areas of the world where most adult men, by custom or law, own and use guns, and usually carry them on their person, there is very little crime committed by people with weapons of any kind. What could possibly be the purpose of those who want to take away from people the one thing that has done the most to make individuals and communities safe places to live?
Gun Control - Control of those without guns by those with guns. A lot of people are for this.
The first thing to ask anyone that is for gun control is if they are opposed to all guns? If they are foolish enough to say they are opposed to all guns, ask them how they propose to keep those who want guns from having them, without using guns?
The desire for gun control is really only a desire for control. It is difficult to control those with guns, especially if they do not choose to be controlled.
Gun Control - Control of those without guns, (who earn their living by their own effort) by those with guns (who confiscate their living from those without guns). A lot of people are for this.
There is only one reason some people want to control others. When some people want something which depends on others cooperation (compliance and submission) to supply it, and those it depends on do not choose to cooperate, there is an overwhelming desire to make them cooperate.
The only way to make the uncooperative cooperate is to threaten or use force against them. If the intended victims are able to defend themselves, however, this will be very difficult or impossible. The solution is to make sure the intended victims are disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
The majority of people who are for gun control are not opposed to guns. They want to make sure those who will be providing there benefits, their welfare checks, their pensions, and their pay checks, have guns. They are only opposed to those whose fleecing their incomes depend on do not have guns, that is, the decent, self-supporting, honest members of society.
All gun control is wrong. Anyone should able to purchase, own, and carry a gun without getting anyone's permission, approval. or consent.
A gun is nothing more than a machine, and like any other machine can be used for a number of different purposes. One of its most useful purposes is the protection of the one who has and uses it to defend himself against others who would use force against them.
Anyone should be able to own as many of these tools, of any kind, as they can afford and wish to own. And they ought to be able to use them in any way the wish so long as it does not involve the initiation of force against any other individual. Any attempt to prevent an honest citizen from possessing any kind of weapon of self defense is immoral
As a result of further research, the above is amended as follows:
Most gun control is wrong. Anyone should able to purchase, own, and carry a gun without getting anyone's permission, approval. or consent, except that no member or employee of any government agency should be allowed to own or carry a gun.
When a citizen uses a gun inappropriately, the law and its forces will act swiftly to prosecute that wrong use. When an agent of the government uses a gun to harm an innocent citizen, which is much more frequently than most people would imagine, the law will seek every possible means to excuse or otherwise cover up the abuse, usually with great success.
There is nothing to fear from any citizen carrying a gun, unless he is a member of some law enforcement agency.
When decent citizens carry guns, crime is reduced. Decent citizens do not use guns except in self defense, and since the number of criminals is reduced, the amount of gun related crime is automatically reduced.
Question: If the police are not allowed to carry guns, how will they stop criminals who have guns?
Answer: The same way they stop them now. Not at all.
Consult any source for crime statistics. There is always either an increase or decrease in the number of violent crimes of all kinds. Government agencies attempt to use such statistics to prove the affectiveness of government crime prevention methods, except when they want more money, in which case they attempt to show crime is worse, to prove crime prevention needs more of your money.
No matter how they are analyzed, crime statics show and prove only one thing, no government program or agency prevents crime. If the police could prevent crime, there would be no statistics.