Gun Control Facts

The more and more I read into gun-control, the less and less the case for it makes much sense. It's one of those "less guns = less deaths" calculations that doesn't seem to make out. There's much, much more at play. More to the point, it may very well be a policy in place to make us believe we're doing something creating a placebo effect on safety.

Now people have taken to arguing the 2nd amendment is "outdated." So is the 13th amendment. And?

No point or logic in this argument for a multitude of reasons on several levels. I won't get into this here. It drives me nuts when complete hacks use this line to pimp their idea.

For now, digest all these facts about gun control at Justhefacts.

It's a fascinating read and you'll find (not surprisingly) a lot of what you hear just doesn't match the facts.


Here's an essay on Canadian Gun Control by David Kopel I've yet to complete.


Off the cuff remarks:

While the 2nd amendment is here to stay, pragmatically, the discussion would be best geared towards ensuring the gun purchasing process is solid. From what I see, it's quite compact and can take up to two weeks to complete. More details in the first link.

It'll take a multitude of actions - including access to better mental health facilities. The problem with the "right to bear arms" is the chances of the government declaring war on the people is remote. However, the framers were astute observers of history and knew all too well anything can happen so they made sure the people had the right to bear arms even for basic security needs - not unlike modern Switzerland. Human nature, the thinking went I reckon, is human nature.

It's probably the most sober of all the amendments. And one in which typifies various misunderstood under-currents. It's, like the Constitution itself, a product of various factions and voices joined into one. There is no right or wrong. Therein lies the genius which permits it to remain relevant today. It's only "irrelevant" to people who have an agenda the amendment likely doesn't support. It doesn't make it wrong or, as I stated, "outdated."

The framers considered many factors. Britain, for example, declared its subjects hand in all guns - statistics to the results at Justthe facts in link above. That's a clear violation of the state removing the right for people to protect themselves. America doesn't have that problem since it's enshrined in their Constitution. Britain is moving in a weird direction these days. I digress.

Moreover, legislation takes it a step further in that when a criminal trespasses or unlawfully enters the private property of a citizen, the law asks the victim to use "reasonable force." Should the prosecution find otherwise, the victim quickly becomes the criminal - for protecting their family and property.

It's an unacceptable situation, if not an immoral one. Yet, we're made to feel as though wanting to carry a gun for protection is an improper decision.

It's one of the most basic and beautiful law of the jungle: If the criminal knows you kick ass, they leave you alone. Create "gun-free" zones and emasculate the society, and you've just given the cue and upper-hand to the criminal.

It's been argued it's an outmoded thought meant for Revolutionary times, I disagree. I think the framers knew exactly what they were doing. They had clarity, even thought they mostly argued incessantly amongst each other, having experienced it, on such matters.

It's probably more a timeless amendment than an outmoded one. One in which the facts of history sit solidly on the side of the framers.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.