|















Our friends and supporters listed below.
PAGFSA do not charge for advertising. We are 100% privately sponsored.



Sponsored By:

| |
|
Are Guns Killing
Machines, designed with the sole purpose of killing?
Wikipedia.org
describes a gun as follows
|
In modern
parlance, a gun is a
projectile
weapon using a hollow, tubular
barrel with a closed end—the breech—as the
means of directing the projectile (as well as
other purposes, for example stabilizing the
projectile's trajectory, aiming, as an expansion
chamber for propellant, etc), and firing in a
generally flat trajectory. |
There are two polar opposite views of
weapon ownership. One is emotional, based mostly on
fear, and the other is rational, based on observation
Emotional:
Guns (and other weapons) are dirty and dangerous and
have no place in polite society. Weapons should be
relegated to the hands of a few appointed/knighted
officers who handle society's dirt so that the rest of
us can keep our hands clean. Delicate society should be
elevated above the fray, and most of us are not capable
or trustworthy enough to handle power anyway.
Rational:
Crime and war are realities imposed upon us by criminals
and tyrants, so it does us no good to bury our heads in
the sand and pretend they don't exist. All functional
members of a free society are
nobility, therefore imbued with considerable
sovereignty over their property and freedom of action,
but also obligated to defend their shared realm against
enemies both foreign and domestic.
Supporters of the first view commonly
assert that the only purpose of guns is to kill people.
They fear that anyone with a gun is out to kill them
(who's paranoid now?) unless the gun carrier is wearing
a uniform and/or a badge, in which case everything is
magically okay.
Actually, the chief purpose for guns
in conflicts is to persuade others to surrender or flee.
Even in war, many more participants surrender or retreat
than are injured or killed in combat. Therefore, the
purpose of a gun depends on the goals of the person
carrying it.
"Only peace
dispels violence."
How very Zen. How very false... a
feel-good sentiment that can get you killed. Even
worse, it's a feel-good sentiment that can get me
killed. If you want to be an unarmed pacifist, then
by all means go ahead. Just don't insist that I copy
you.
Look at it this way: If you do
insist, how will you do so? By sending armed
government agents to my home to confiscate my guns?
Now there's pacifism for you! |
What About the Children?
Sadly, the "war on drugs" has
created a black market that places a premium on
child labor because minors are immune to most
prosecution. The consequent gang violence is
responsible for most of the shooting deaths of and
by minors.
Even so, many times as many kids
drown as are shot. Why don't we have a national
clamor for five gallon bucket locks? How about
banning bathtubs and backyard swimming pools? Why
don't bathtub drownings get the national TV coverage
that accidental shootings get?
If we are going to react to child
mortality, then we should address about 100 more
common causes first. The attention focused on guns
is irrational.
As important as the undue
attention focused on tragedy is the silence and
blindness to heroism. Why don't network news reports
mention the guns that have been used to stop
killings?
Also, one must not only bemoan
the guns that shot children, but also the absence of
guns that could have protected them. In mass murders
and schoolyard shootings, one might blame the first
death on the criminal's access to guns, but all
subsequent deaths should be blamed on victim
disarmament. |
Gun Safety
Emulate the Swiss. Teach all
children from an early age to have a healthy respect
for (but not fear of) guns and their power. Train
adolescents in how to safely handle guns, even if
they don't actually touch any. Offer to train all
sane, law-abiding, adult citizens how to shoot, how
to wage war, and how and when to fight violent crime
(and when not to). Elevate as many citizens as
possible to the level of "off-duty cop", then grant
them nationwide permits to carry concealed firearms,
and then encourage them to do so.
During the transition period,
there might be a momentary swell in gun related
crimes as stupid punks try to exploit easier access
to guns. However, with armed law defenders
outnumbering potential law breakers about 50 to 1,
the stupid punks wouldn't last long.
There's an analogy to
automobiles: Just as access to a gun can end in
tragedy, so can access to car keys. Can your
children pick up your keys when you aren't looking?
Could they kill themselves or others? If so, would
they? Why or why not? Are guns any different?
If car keys doesn't work for you,
try the same questions with matches. Incidentally,
many more children cause more death, injury, and
property damage by playing with matches (and
lighters) than by playing with guns. Why don't we
hear a steady propaganda stream aimed at fire
control? Are lighters and matches sold to minors in
your state? |
Whom Can We Trust?
If you would trust a stranger to
stop a car for you when you are crossing the street,
then you should trust him or her, given comparable
training, to own a gun. When citizens who support
law are strengthened, then society becomes safer.
It's like having a few million extra off duty police
officers in plain clothes watching every street and
every shop. What's more, would-be robbers don't know
who's who, so they must respect all of us, even
those who are too anxious to handle guns.
If one sees one's neighbors as
mostly hostile, then one will not want them to have
guns. If one sees most of one's friends, family,
neighbors and countrymen as likely to come to one's
aid, then one does want guns generally
available.
In other words, the gun debate
turns partly upon how one views the quality of the
people who would wield guns rather than just on
one's own ability. Consequently, we can deduce that
anti-gun people cynically view the rest of society
as hostile and evil, or at least grossly incompetent
and reckless. This conclusion is supported by gun
grabbers' assertions that general gun ownership
would cause society to erupt in flames (it hasn't). |
Because the viewpoint of one pole
is irrational, gun control is one issue that yields
to steady logical pressure calmly presented. I was
all for gun control when I was younger. Over the
course of about 15 years, I migrated first to
neutrality and then to opposition as I discovered
first the futility of gun control and then the
concepts of free society nobility. What it took was
a few libertarians in each place I lived explaining
in careful, non-threatening ways, and a series of
news events demonstrating that criminals still
acquire guns even when/where they are illegal.
Earlier, I simply tuned out
emotional gun defenders as nuts the same way I now
tune out shrill, emotional gun grabbers today. When
discussing guns and gun control, I try as much as
possible to stay calm, knowing that reason and time
are both on my side. A few fascists will hold to gun
control ideas to their dying breaths, but in the
course of each public debate, rational bystanders
will move inexorably toward individual liberty and
individual responsibility. |
|
|
|