The intelligent have recognized the fact that forcible disarmament by “law” is an amazingly idiotic and dangerous idea — for CENTURIES:
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Cesare Beccaria (Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana) From his treatise “On Crimes and Punishments” (1764)
At another point in the same “comments” thread, I stumbled across what has to be the clearest and most direct explanation of (nearly) everything wrong with so-called “Gun control”, and — especially — with the mindset of its advocates:
1. When a person bent on mass shooting is stopped by a civilian or LEO, a mass shooting is prevented, and is therefore not counted on any list, nor reported in the national media. It is like the seatbelt that saves a life in a collision- it is a non-reported event.
2. Banning or restricting access to guns (i.e. sales to private persons) is not likely to have any effect, because guns are readily available on the illegal market in every country on earth. It would be no different in the USA.
3. If we accept that a person has a right to fight back against an attacker, then it only makes sense to give that person an effective tool to do so. It is manifestly unfair to tell someone that it is okay to defend themself, then deny them the very best tool for the job.
4. Owning a gun no more makes a person dangerous than owning any other dangerous object, like a can of gasoline, a baseball bat or a car.
5. Just because someone owns a gun doesn’t mean that they will misuse it. (I don’t believe I have to state something so obvious, but I guess I do.)
6. Mass shooters are almost always stopped when they meet armed resistance, either at the hands of police or civilians. They are cowards, and their “plan” usually ends with suicide.
7. Civilians need firearms to protect themselves from criminals in the same way that police do. Even more so, because criminals usually target civilians, not police, and police are rarely at hand to immediately protect civilians from criminals. If you wouldn’t take firearms away from police, you shouldn’t take them away from civilians, either.
8. Even if you could remove from existence all firearms, the victors of conflict would simply be the mightiest; the weak (female, elderly or few in number) would be victimized by the strong (younger, bigger, or greater in number.) Without the equalizing nature of firearms, the weak would be at the mercy of the strong.
9. People familiar with guns, their operation and use, are rarely in favor of banning guns. People who are ignorant of guns are often afraid of them as well.
10. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to rely upon armed men and women for protection, but deny people arms to protect themselves.
Now, point #8 strikes me as somewhat of a shaky over-generalization: “Brute” strength/speed etc. matter far less than is commonly believed:
One of the main problems with the “gun-control” debate is the fact that it is typically “hijacked”, and treated as a single “issue” within the broader Right/Left “mainstream” ideological paradigm.
So, for example (as you’ll probably see if you bother to rummage through the “comments” section on the above-linked firearms blog), along with some very detailed and erudite information about firearms, and some valid arguments in favor of individual self-defense/”RKBA” as an “individual” right — you encounter shit-tons of “States’ Rights” red herrings (even though the most egregious “gun control” bullshit is perpetrated at the “State” level), an an almost-total ignorance of Islam/Muslims — EXCEPT by way of the standard Right-wing Islamophobic caricatures.
Having said that: “Right-wingers” (even the “tough on crime”-types), tend to at least implicitly “get” the fact that no matter how repressive, Draconian and “total” a given sociopolitical system becomes, “lawbreaking” of all sorts WILL continue to be virtually ubiquitous:
On the bright side, this is one reason why “legalistic” regimes are (ultimately) self-defeating: you simply cannot “micromanage” a subject population who are still capable of independent thought:
The pattern is (roughly) as follows:
THOUGHT -> EVALUATION -> CHOICE-> ACTION
Independent THOUGHT leads to independent EVALUATION, after which individuals make CHOICES based on those EVALUATIONS — most particularly, in regard to their particular course of ACTION.
A simple example which should be both familiar, and non-controversial:
The vast majority of Christians do not obey “Kashrut” dietary strictures:
Now, in many cases it is undoubtedly true that their failure to do so comes down to ignorance (IE: they honestly don’t know that — at one point — the religion from which THEIR religion is “descended” imposed a vast and complicated “rules” which are both prescriptive and proscriptive — some things are “commanded”, others are “forbidden”.
So, for example, Fundie Protestants typically don’t have “Peyot” — even if they DO have beards:
Now, my characterization of their non-obsession with the intricacies of Jewish religious “law” as “ignorance” should in no way be taken as pejorative: I am undoubtedly “ignorant” of a vast corpus of superstitions and taboos endemic to a whole variety of cultural groups.
My point is: at some point during “Christian” history, somebody or other (most likely a “Gentile”) evaluated Jewish “law”, and decided that the vast majority of it should be summarily disregarded (except, of course, for the parts of Leviticus which could be cherry-picked to “justify” homophobia — but that’s another story.)
At any rate: I’m pretty sure “Fundies” would vehemently resist the imposition of “Kashrut” dietary strictures by FORCE.
Yes, well: I suspect that I might have strayed “off-topic” (provided, of course, that I actually had a rigidly-delineated “topic” in mind, at the outset — which I’m not entirely sure I did.