Skip to main content

Gun Control: Claim vs Truth

In the aftermath of the violent murdering spree in Las Vegas, Nevada, an emotional whirlwind has reliably tossed the intellectual world away from pragmatic understanding and logical thought toward fantasies of the Orwellian state of nirvana.

As it turns out, Democrats are far too emotional to reason, while Republicans are far too inarticulate to defend freedom. So the end outcome will seemingly continue to favor conviction at the expense of liberty.

And unfortunately the eventual masterplan will predictably fail, by fault of design, as political pundits, much like their wide array of unaccountable social programs, have no real end game beyond justifying still further expansion of the public Leviathan. 

In policymaking, it is always and everywhere an endless cycle of political whack-a-mole.

And just like the popular arcade game, it sells and players keep coming back to it.



This publication is dedicated to addressing some of the recurring themes discussed each time the subject of gun control returns to relevancy.

These excerpts are taken directly from a post found on my Facebook news feed.


Gun Control: Claim vs Truth


Claim: "It is ridiculous that these events can occur unpredictably at anytime solely from possession."

Truth: The price of freedom is the capacity for failure.

Moreover, these events are generally unpredictable; however, they are clearly not the consequence of basic possession.

Their vile uses are corroborated by the actions of those who wield them.

Claim: "It's not that I think guns should be banned, but the regulations and checks for acquiring them should be a lot more stringent."

Truth: This statement falls victim to the fallacy of "should."

Furthermore, regulations cannot possibly be successful in recovering existing weapons, and even the strictest criteria will invariably fail to prevent that single atrocity committed by an eager gunman without a single demerit on his record.

In this case, the only feasible political method would be a nationwide raid on property combined with a complete ban on all weapons, a fantasy prohibition that would only supercharge the real demand for weapons throughout the informal economy.

Follow the prices of equities for firearms manufacturers over the past week for further empirical evidence of this trend.

Claim: "People have to acquire a license for medical marijuana and licenses a [sic] throughly checked a majority of them time when purchasing alcohol. What can't similar or more strict circumstances exist for firearms?"

Truth: The war on drugs has a reprehensible record tied to causing still further crime and greater substance use, as the underground economy breeds violence and opaqueness which jeopardizes the safety of consumers, producers and distributers alike.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explained in his 1991 interview on the subject, "If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."

In fact, many studies show that teen marijuana use has declined markedly across years of increasing legalization. Researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis show a 10-percent decline of use between the years 2002 and 2013.

Finally, the gun ownership rate in the United States has climbed by roughly 50 percent over the past two decades. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate is down commensurately over the same period.

“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.” - Stefan Molyneux

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…