Adam Lanza

Post Reply New Topic

I have a question about the pro gun/anti gun argument.

If the government bans guns, then the criminals will be the only ones who posess illegal guns. In countries where they have totally banned, guns, then did they succeed in preventing the criminals from illegally obtaining guns?

When a tradegy happens, it drives the people to beg the government for more government control. I hate what happened in the tradgedy. But even after this, I still hate government control.

Of course not.

Anyone not surrendering their firearms will instantly become a criminal and that will be a lot of new criminals. In the millions. I could go on and on about that......


The tragedy in question was a bad one but look at is this way: If a deranged bus driver had run a busload of kids (more than 26) over a cliff and killed them all you wouldn't be hearing and reading nearly as much about it. For all practical purposes it would be a closed matter except for the locals.

The Sandy Hook massacre was seen as a potential windfall for the anti gun side. The simple minded, of course, agree with a gun ban solution since they think guns have special powers to control their user's minds (or whatever else it bothering them). And, of course, they flock to the government for protection without realizing the the government doesn't do such a good job of it and has no inclination to no matter how much power we relinquish to them. It's not even possible to protect the individual.
When it comes down to it you're pretty much on your own when it comes to your protection against violent criminals. If the cops are their to intervene it's purely coincidence.

My understanding of how it works is that when regular people don't have guns, criminals don't have any need to use guns against regular people while robbing them or breaking into their houses. Guns are then only used among themselves when rival criminal organisations fight. So instead of every criminal robbing you or breaking into your house also shooting you (because you could shoot them), they go in unarmed and have less risk and no need to actually harm anyone. It stops the arms race between regular people and criminals by taking away the weapons of one side, making it harder for the other side to come by weapons and leaving the government as a greatly superior force to both.

So a gun ban in terms of safety works just fine, the only problem is that it relies on some other force, the government, to still have superior weapons to fight criminals, lest they decide to crown themselves king of some place and control regular people with the weapons only they have. This would work out fine if government was inherently benevolent, but that isn't the case. They may just as easily as the criminals crown themselves king and control people with superior weapons. This is what often happens in unstable democracies where a newly elected ruler has control over the army and decides democracy isn't hist thing.

The question of gun control boils down a choice between two evils; dangerous criminals or dangerously powerful government. Sadly there isn't really a way to have neither, at least not without changing a lot more than just some gun ban laws.