June 16, 2016—Why is it always the people who ride around in cars made of bulletproof glass and surround themselves with armed guards that have the AUDACITY to talk about the dangers of guns?
Every time a mass shooting happens, the same predictable script plays out. The rally cries come from all around: “We must do something about gun violence in America!”
The president comes out and gives his speech. We hear from the talking heads and pundits in the mainstream media, and now we even get a little plea from late night comedy show hosts.
OK, fine. Something has to be done, OK. But what the hell does that mean? Sometimes we look for answers to problems that just don’t have a clear-cut solution. Sometimes the problem is deeper than the surface, and there’s more than meets the eye.
Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what logic, facts, data and history tell us. Instead, we let emotions make the decisions.
As long as the state gives us something (anything!), we can feel better. If the state passes a law, they can say that they are doing their duty to protect the public. The passing of laws, though, is more of a symbolic solution rather than an actual one, but it doesn’t seem to matter.
We don’t actually need to solve the problem. All we have to is paint over the dirt with good intentions and everyone will feel better. The public will have renewed trust and faith in politicians. They’ll have pride in themselves for feeling like they were playing a part in democracy and history.
But, everyone knows that laws don’t eliminate the desire in people to do what they want to do, get what they want to get, and consume what they want to consume. As long as the desire is there, a provider to satisfy that want will emerge.
So, what do stricter laws actually do for us? What does history tell us? Luckily we have some examples to look to for guidance.
What Did ALCOHOL Prohibition do?
Did it prevent people from drinking? Or did the people who wanted to drink, find a way to drink? Did the statist solution work? Did the act of writing down words on a piece of paper magically change people’s behavior?
Did it decrease people’s desire to drink? Or did the natural law of supply and demand still manage to function? Did it prevent a “black market,” or did it create it by making free individuals personal choices illegal, thus turning people into criminals?
Everyone knows that Prohibition was a massive failure, mainly for the reason that this “Noble law” caused way more harm than good. It gave rise to a multitude of massive organized crime operations. Cops and federal agents took bribes. Bar owners held speakeasy parties, and people drank anyway. Massive failure and a stain on American History. A lesson we sadly have not learned from.
What Has The War On Drugs Done?
Has it decreased the use of drugs? Has it reduced people’s desire to use drugs? Has it made it impossible to get drugs?
Has it increased or decreased the level of trust, judgment, and stigma towards our fellow man? Has advanced or prevented the study of alternative healing therapies and medicines?
Has it decreased gang violence & murder? What is the cost to the taxpayer to enforce these laws?
Has it locked up more criminals? Or has it just simply criminalized the behaviors of non-violent people, thus making them criminals? Has it decreased gang violence & murder or increased it?
Have we helped people with addiction get better, rehabilitate, and become productive members of society? Or Have we just locked non-violent people in cages like animals for Victimless “crimes”?
What about legal drugs?
Can good people who obtain drugs legally through a doctor prescription do bad things with them? Do people who get legal drugs still abuse them? Do they still overdose and die from them? Do people who get prescription drugs still give them to their friends, or distribute and sell them on the black market?
Do they still overdose and die from them? Do people who get prescription drugs still give them to their friends, or distribute and sell them on the black market?
Who gains the most from these laws? Who loses the most from them?
The government gets to take taxpayer money (More than $51,000,000,000 a year) to employ a litany of bureaus, agencies, and resources combating this massive failure. And what do we have to show for it?
The largest prison population in the world. A culture of fear, paranoia, and social stigma. Creation of “Criminals” and gangs, lives ruined, children growing up without fathers and mothers. Dead Cops, dead kids, dead dogs, the list, goes on and on.
The law has the opposite effect of the good intention that created it. It does more harm than good. That is a fact.
What Will Stricter Gun Laws do?
Will it be harder for “evil doers” to get their hands on guns? Maybe, but just like the above examples of prohibition and the war on drugs. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
So why not give the people back their right to protect themselves? After all isn’t the only way to stop gun violence to use gun violence?
I wish to recall a recent episode of the popular HBO series Game Of Thrones. A few episodes back, a character named ‘The Hound’ had resurfaced. He was a violent man, who had decided to renounce violence. He joined a group that preached pacifism, led by Ian Mcshane of Deadwood fame. A trio of thugs rides into their village trying to intimidate them. McShane’s character responds that he is a man of faith and that his community is one of the peaceful people. No one is looking for trouble, just to live and enjoy the life he says. Later on, The Hound is chopping wood alone in the forest when he hears screams. He runs to the village to find every man woman and child slaughtered and McShane’s character hanged to death. The Hound decides to pick up an Axe and go after the killers.
Is this situation in this fantasy TV show any different than what happens in our world?
When violence erupts in a public place, the way a modern mass shooting unfolds, how is the killer stopped? Who stops him and with what? The answer is, of course, the police stop him and they stop him by using guns.
But how long does it take for police to arrive on the scene of the crime? Usually, it takes some time. First responders usually arrive in 5-7 minutes. But, 5- 7 minutes is an eternity when a deranged psychopath is on a mission for infamy with a high powered weapon.What about when the police arrive?How good is their tactical positioning to take out the killer?
Seeing how using gun violence is the only thing that stops gun violence, why should guns be limited to only two groups of people? The police and the criminals. Making everyone else hopeless and defenseless.Sitting ducks!
Police have guns. The Secret Service that protects the president has guns. The military has guns. Why is it OK for these groups to have them? They kill people and commit violence on a mass scale, yet they still reserve the right to protect themselves and their masters. Why do they have special rights ?
What about gun manufacturers and arms dealers? How will we stop the production of weapons and the distribution of them? What about all the guns that police, government agencies, and the military need? They need a lot. What about the importing and trafficking of weapons? How much more money will the government need to steal from us in taxes to enforce all the regulations they wish to pass?
What About A Ban on Assault Rifles?