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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

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 whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes