Shooting my mouth off

Nov 28, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I want to talk about the Supreme Court Case regarding the gun ban in Washington, D.C. - I have a remote personal connection to it, and it's been on the news, and on my mind, a bit.

I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court of our Nation is still unalloyed enough - and it would be the only government body that is currently still acting on it's initial mission if it was - to stick to the constitution and wipe away this unconstitutional gun ban. That's their job. I wonder whether they'll do it.

Regardless of what people prefer, the Supreme Court has one job - to make sure law sticks to the documents that our country is based on - to keep the rest of the government from coloring too far outside the lines drawn by the founders.

Considering how well they're doing keeping their part of the deal, is it any wonder that I'm watching this one closely rather than assuming it'll come out rationally?

Why anyone thinks -- in the first place -- that a gun ban is the solution to nasty runaway crime is beyond me - it always results in higher crime. All it does is make the scenario run like this:


Criminal doesn't follow the law -- by definition. Law abiding citizen Joe does - again, by definition.

Mr Criminal gets desperate and wants a way to make sure he wins no matter what, so he gets a gun illegally.

Criminal picks and chooses from numerous easy victims without defense equivalent to criminal's offense. He chooses Mr. Law-abiding Citizen Joe.

Criminal invades space belonging to Joe, and having prepared for the fight and with weapon ready he already has two up on luckless Joe.

Joe runs away and - if he's lucky - he has time to grab a makeshift weapon like a bat or frying pan.

Mr Law-abiding citizen Joe becomes Mr. Victim, not because he's weaker or more cowardly, but because of having mismatched defenses.

Mr. Victim is incapacitated.

Mr. Criminal gets away with it.


So the solution is to take away more guns from more law-abiding citizens? I don't personally see how that follows.

Now, it is obvious to anyone who knows how to read crime statistics that disarming the law-abiding does not work. If you would argue with me on this, first read the factual statistics for crime rates - not the media spin in either direction - about the gun bans anywhere they've had one active. Ohio, Australia, San Fran, D.C., London -- you'll find the same trends. Lots more premeditated violent crime.

Criminals are cowards by nature -- it requires cowardice to even consider taking by force that which you are too lazy or have too little self-esteem to go earn for yourself. Criminals are naturally not inclined to register their guns, get them through legal means and such.

So when you have everyone turn in the registered guns, all you're left with are the unregistered criminal's guns.

And violent crime skyrockets because the criminal knows ahead of time that he is not evenly matched and that he probably will get away with it.

So, it follows that if criminals knew that every house in America - or at least a fairly large percentage of them - were armed, there would be far less premeditated violent crime. Sure, the stats would still be what they are for psychotic breaks and for non-violent crime. But the violent crime rates would drop measurably after a burglar or two got knocked down in them in the process of trying to knock down someone else.

Government tries gun bans because they appease people while sneaking away liberties -- they adore solutions with the one-two punch of false-security & stolen-liberty.

But, wouldn't it be totally goofy to try the opposite extreme? I mean, government would N-E-V-E-R do this. I can't imagine anyone doing something so trusting, but imagine if they did...

What if they subsidized the gun ownership of the proven law-abiding citizen?

This idea is, of course, predicated on my basic trust in my fellow men. I really do trust other sane, well-meaning people. I trust them not to misuse power. I trust the average Joe with gun ownership.

Don't you?

Basically, under such a hypothetical subsidy, someone like me who has never committed a crime, lives well (and could get someone else with such a squeaky clean past to vouch for them) could get a tax break for owning a gun. Even better if he got another tax break for getting gun training so he knows how to use the thing.

It would result in a very high number of houses with guns owned by relatively sane, trustworthy people.

I think that'd solve most violent crime. I think it would instantly create too great a consequence for most criminals to be willing to face.

And I think the tax break should be significant enough to work to convince even the extreme liberal. Those who see "gun" and think "crime" (a totally stupid identification) would MAYBE try owning one to see whether or not they feel safer, if you gave them a profitable reason to try it out. Obviously calling on their sense of duty and honor isn't workable. Anyone who thinks in such hypocrisies as believing THEY personally are good but YOU are obviously bad, well, they probably will only answer to the call of money that is the basic methodology of why a subsidy works.

Of course, then most of the criminal element would probably wander over toward other areas of crime, probably the equally cowardly identity theft and internet scam areas.

But at least our lives and real property would be safe.

Wouldn't it be worth it to try at this point? Nothing to do with limiting guns has killed violent crime. Why not point the sights at the real source of the problem - the cowardice of the criminal?

At least there's what I think about this particular subject of gun bans.

What are your thoughts?

1 Responses to Shooting my mouth off

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Right On!!! Nothing else needs to be said.