How and Why Democrats and Liberals can Believe Gun Bans Work. Part 4 in The Right Response?

Along with other liberals, President Obama believes that more stringent gun laws will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms. Although banning guns does make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own them, their beliefs just ignore reality: Criminals don't get their guns by following the law.

Let's explore some of the more common misunderstandings held by gun ban advocates.

Gun Bans would Stop Criminals obtaining Guns Liberals seem to believe that yet more gun bans will eliminate the guns possessed by criminals and deranged individuals? But is any law 100% effective?

Yet more laws to tighten access to firearms will make it more difficult to obtain guns legally. Yes indeed, but only for law-abiding citizens wishing to defend themselves. There are so many firearms in circulation, such restrictions would be nothing more than a minor deterrence to criminals who neither obey the law nor obtain guns legally.

The evidence from Australia and Britain shows virtually complete gun bans are failures. How can they succeed in America with far wider gun ownership?

Gun-free Zones ensure no one has guns This is just wishful thinking. They do ensure no one has guns legally. but that's not the point.

Some responsible citizens will decide to ignore further gun bans. Since these laws ignore the Second Amendment, law-abiding citizens will make their own decisions, encouraging more disrespect for the law.

All massacres of four or more students have taken place in supposedly gun-free zones. How come? Because then responsible people don't have guns to stop the spree shooter. Again, criminals don't obey the law, nor do the mentally disturbed.

Teachers can't be Trusted with Guns What if teachers have firearms, and one goes mad and starts a shooting spree? But you need to recognize this can happen whether or not there are further gun bans, which means such fears are irrelevant.

You trust teachers to educate your children, why would you not also trust teachers to protect your children. You trust the police with guns to protect your children, are the police so much more trust-worthy than teachers? To ask the question with an open-mind will bring the obvious answer

Ensuring sane, responsible teachers are not armed when a mentally disturbed person starts shooting just stops them defending their students and themselves. Only a gun stops a spree shooter.

Knowledgeable Experts Know Better
There are experts in every field. But for every expert, there's another with an opposing view. Wisdom suggests you develop the rare skill to determine which expert to listen to, and which to ignore.

But who are knowledgeable firearms experts? President Obama, who says he shoots skeet guns "all the time?" Piers Morgan, who had never fired a gun until recently? Senator Feinstein, who has access to armed guards yet doesn't seem to understand the US Constitution? Or Larry Correia, Title 7 SOT gun store owner, Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, military and law enforcement master trainer, competition shooter, expert witness for the Utah State Legislature, elite firearms expert.*

Naive belief in the opinions of others is well... naive. Rather examine the evidence and make up your own mind. Overcome the bias taught by a government education and learn to examine the evidence for yourself.

No matter how overwhelming the factual evidence, many so-called experts will only agree with something which supports their existing opinion. They've already made up their mind, and changing it would mean admitting they were wrong.

Since the self-sabotage mechanism is vehemently against any such admission, it takes a very aware individual to admit to mistakes. As Dr. David Hawkins, author of Truth vs Falsehood, explains:

"The narcissistic core of the ego is aligned with being "right," whether being "right' means being in agreement with wisdom or rejecting it as invalid."

Do Wise Politicians Know Better?
Absolutely not! The 1986 Nobel Economics Prize was awarded to the late Dr. James Buchanan for Public Choice analysis, which proved that politicians and bureaucrats behave just as selfishly as regular citizens.

Rather than changing overnight to become selfless guardians of the public interest, both politicians and government employees simply continue their self-serving behavior .

Politicians all fight tenaciously to be re-elected. Why? What other reason can it be but to keep pursuing their own best interests? Since they use their power to benefit themselves, the power they enjoy needs to be drastically curtailed. The US Constitution is an initial but flawed attempt to ensure this.

When someone holds an obviously illogical position, ask yourself: How do they benefit? Where is the money? Have they been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for no obvious reason? Was their support purchased for a mere million dollars?

Does Anyone Know the "One-Best Answer?"
Obviously not. Does the "one-best answer" even exist? The best way to determine a better answer is to examine the effectiveness of already tested strategies. Even then, that answer can only be the best among those already implemented. How can you know all the consequences of an untried policy?

The Founding Fathers specified anything not allocated to the Federal government be "reserved to the several states," thereby ensuring many different strategies would be tried. Without practical experience of any policy along with its outcomes, how can you determine its effectiveness? It takes time for all unseen consequences to become evident.

This suggests that anyone insisting they already know the one-best answer may be telling the truth - but only to a very different question. One about money and power! So ask yourself how their recommended policy would benefit them? What effect will it have on their finances? Does their answer increase their power?

All this means the freedom to implement different strategies is crucial. When each state adopts its own policies, their different results mean you can later compare effectiveness. They will be able to check how well different policies work and ascertain the best tried so far.

Why do People Deny your Right to Protect Yourself? There are many reasons why people may not understand the immense benefits of choice, and the desire for individual freedom guaranteed by owning protective firearms. They seem to think that you don't have a right to protect yourself. But why?

a. They think that responsible people cannot be trusted with guns. Yet they've also been taught to think government agents with firearms, such the police, the military are responsible and trust-worthy. There's a big disconnect here.

Although they themselves are just regular average citizens, they don't see the average person as responsible. Which makes you wonder how trustworthy are they themselves. Yet most people are responsible, and can be trusted with firearms to protect their own safety. There's a good word for the untrustworthy: criminals.

b. They're emotionally reacting to the loss of a loved one. They think that guns kill people rather than people kill people using guns, or hammers, or knives. See previous article, The Right Response? #2.

c. They think they know better. See the above fallacy of thinking there is one-best answer. And the arrogance of thinking they already know what that one-best answer is. Does one size fit all?

d. They don't realize how often guns are used defensively. In the USA, studies show defensive gun uses happen around a million times a year. Yet many such uses would be ignored rather than reported, which suggests there are over a million defensive gun uses annually.

e. They think they are right, aka being right. They think their opinions are automatically right, because it's what they think. But everyone alive has made mistakes, there is no-one who hasn't had thoughts which have later proved wrong. So everybody already has incontrovertible proof their thoughts are not always right.

f. They know how to agree or disagree, but they don't know how to think. They mistakenly think that acceptance or rejection is thinking objectively. But choosing who to believe is just choosing - not critical thinking!

g. They confound believing with thinking. Is Britain's Piers Morgan in this category? He's busy attempting career suicide by his vituperative emotional attacks demonstrating he can't think for himself.

You can tell when someone has thought critically about an issue, they defend it rationally. When they can't defend a belief rationally, yet are unwilling to look at the evidence, they have no other choice but to defend it emotionally. Getting upset, along with insults and ignoring the facts, simply demonstrate an inability to think rationally.

h. Infamous Nazi (National Socialist) dictator Adolf Hitler disarmed his Jewish citizens to eliminate any armed resistance. Mind you, he's not the only dictator who's disarmed the population, they all do. Gun bans demonstrate that ruling politicians do not have the general welfare at heart.

i. Or there's some other reason. Since abundant evidence demonstrates that disarming the population does not protect them, is there another reason? Is the goal gun control - or is it actually people control? More from Adolf Hitler on controlling people in: "Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations"

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

© Copyright worldwide Cris Baker, www.LifeStrategies.net All rights reserved. Republishing welcomed under Creative Commons noncommercial no derivatives license preserving all links intact, so please +1 and share this widely!

Food for Thought "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Scottish physician, crime fiction author

* Larry Correia, Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, military and law enforcement master trainer, competition shooter, expert witness for the Utah State Legislature, elite firearms expert.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/