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

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. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi