#6 - On "Assault Weapons" and Control

Guns and gun control are interlinked. For a very long time, the notion of gun control as a form of restricting individuals didn't exist. It didn't have to. The idea that an individual person could carry a weapon, any weapon, to defend themselves was seen as a natural condition.

I don't cling to gun control. I fight it. I see it for what it is: a stepping stone to the curtailment of freedom of choice among individuals by those who think they know what's best for me better than I do. That notion of "for the common good" by and from the Government I will resist and shed light on in any form. It isn't about guns.

It just happens that I have stake because I am a gun owner. Not that it matters since I was against gun control before I bought my first one. Ownership merely sealed the deal on my opposition to gun control. I have a personal stake in it because I have a dog in every fight. Any type of gun control whether it be against handguns, hunting (aka sniper) rifles, "assault weapons" or small, fast smallbore "critter killers" are going to affect me.

Let us discuss some of your points. I quote the following from you:

"The fact is, I agree with those in favour of controls in principle and the arguments you provide which focus on what gun does what and what this means and so on are by the by. I do not think that it is right to have a system in place which allows someone to bowl into a gun shop, fill in some forms and walk out with firearms. It goes against every shred of common sense ever blessed upon the brains of mankind."

What common sense do you refer to? What makes firearms so special that they are deserving of special controls? A gun no more loads and shoots itself than a sword does to chop off heads. They are both inanimate objects. So is a butcher knife. Or a box cutter. Remember what men with box cutters did 6 years ago?

You gloss over the process of purchasing a firearm in this country. Yes, compared to Britain, our system looks to be insane. But it is quite thorough. That "background check" is an anal probe every time you fill out the paperwork. And that paperwork survives for 20 years in the hands of the dealer and subject to inspection by the Government at any time. If the dealer goes out of business, those records go back to the Government. Some believe, as I do, that these records have been used to create an illegal gun registry (see 18 USC 926(a)). There are numerous disqualifiers to firearms ownership. Essentially to own one, you have be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen.

What we do lack for the most part is a requirement to demonstrate "need". Some areas have banned certain types of guns within their borders (Chicago and Washington DC come to mind here) but provided you're law-abiding, you can buy it, do the paperwork, pass the background check and take your purchase home (following all State and Federal laws for transport, of course).

So I reiterate: What is lacking in common sense here? Or is it merely the idea a person can choose to own firearm and beyond making sure the person isn't a known criminal, the Government has no authority to interfere in that choice?

About gun control in Britain: You discuss the farmer having their balls busted to renew a certificate for a shotgun. Do you feel this is appropriate? Or is it simply one more level of control the Government has taken on for itself and another piece of your freedom either ceded to them or taken by legislative force from you. A farmer is a law-abiding citizen. Why should he have to jump through hoops in order to justify himself to the Government? Why should any free man have to do so? He isn't a threat to society. If you want to discuss philosophy, I'd like to start there.

On the topic of the gun controllers, my previous post explained they had the impetus for the ban and got it through. With regard to the media, what trends are you referring to? If anything, the media in this country is very much anti-gun and happily prints anything the gun control groups put forth. Media isn't objective here and in this area, they are operating with their own biases. Stories of people defending themselves with their own arms are virtually never told in the mainstream media and if they are, they are often with a caveat of some quote from a police chief admonishing citizen's for "taking the law into their own hands".

Google around and dig in a bit. You shouldn't have to dig far since you've already read such media in your original post and I can show you just how wrong they are. A culture of half-truths, outright lies and lying by omission with regards to guns is pervasive throughout the media here.

With regard to gun control, you need to understand that both sides depend on funds they acquire from public donations in order to function. If the public support for or against guns isn't strong enough for people to open their checkbooks, these messages don't get out. In this area, the gun control groups have been in retreat for a very long time because they've lied to the public so often and time has proven them wrong that people are no longer as willing to write them checks. Many people simply don't believe them anymore.

For reference, I refer you to this excellent post by Joe Huffman on the subject of why they are in retreat.

In other words, cry wolf long enough and no one will believe you. In this case, substitute the words "there will be blood in the streets" for "wolf" and the analogy fits perfectly.

You ask my why I prefer an "assault weapon" over a handgun. Three reasons: ease of use, accuracy and impact energy.

Yes, rifles are easier to aim. That is the first and simplest reason. That also goes to ease of use since a rifle is easier to support than a pistol. Accuracy comes as a natural consequence of easier aiming as well as having a longer barrel.

Impact energy is the down-and-dirty reason. My primary defense weapon is a .45 caliber pistol. I use it because my fiancee won't let me keep a rifle next to the bed but if I could, I would. Or a shotgun for the same reason. Limiting this to "assault weapons", the rifle hits with an impact energy 3 times that of my pistol (353ft/lbs vs. 1099ft/lbs). That's it. By transferring more energy into my assailant, I am more likely to stop them. And because it is a rifle, I am going to have, as you say, an easier time of aim (especially under stress) and I am less likely to miss.

I want to quote you for the next responses.

"My argument would be, if an assailant is after you with a gun, a) how much time do you need to aim an assault weapon? In close quarters, do you really need maximum accuracy? b) If your man has the drop on you, as he's taken the advantage of surprise and has you in his sights, you can fuckin' forget about using your "equaliser". Sorry pal, the goal has already been scored. Ball at the back of the net, Paul Robinson crying into his gloves. Game over."

In close quarters, you better believe I want maximum accuracy. In close quarters, second chances are going to be few and far between so I better not miss those first shots.

On the subject of time and someone having the drop on you, I can tell you have never studied the subject. That's not a criticism; merely a fact. I have. Most importantly in a practical sense. I have undergone practical, live fire training where it was demonstrated to me as the person with the drop that I could be surprised, have a distance of 15 feet closed to point-blank range and end with two shots in my chest before I had a chance to pull the trigger. Having the drop is not enough. Surprise works both ways and your scenario is too simple.

How much time do I need to aim any weapon? Less than a second to be honest. And if the person who has the drop on me isn't expecting me to draw in return, I might surprise him more than he surprised me. Isn't it worth it to try if you have the means? You don't know what this armed individual's intentions towards you are.

People say to cooperate, to give them what they want. I find that idea repugnant for the simple fact you are placing your life into the hands of a person whose motives are already suspect (he is threatening you with a gun, after all). You are gambling heavily on the idea that there is some "better nature" in this person to appeal to by cooperating.

Do you think giving such a man what he wants is valid if all he wants is to rape you?

What if he is only interested in taking your life?

You can't read minds. I, for one, will not gamble on the benevolence of a criminal. Fighting back with any means at your disposal, not just guns, is always a more successful strategy for survival and avoiding harm. Guns make it easier and more effective to resist. They do "equalize" even if the criminal has their equalizer out first.

Unfortunately since Britain has neutered the individual idea of armed self-defense, you'd have to come here to take a class and receive a practical demonstration. Should you ever wind up on this side of the pond, I can make such arrangements for you free of charge. It will be quite an eye-opener.

"And you know what? He was probably armed in the first place because a) He thought you might have one, b) He could get one easily, c)Why take a risk? Everyone is armed, the cops are armed, got to keep up with the others.

You again equate criminal ownership with legal ownership. Why does a criminal arm himself? Simple: To gain a means of intimidating their victims.

Yes, criminals do think people might have guns but he didn't arm himself as a counter to mine. Criminals in this country actively avoid places where such people might be for the very reason they might be armed. Criminals are first and foremost creatures of opportunity and like any predatory animal, have a well-developed sense of self-preservation. No criminal will knowingly place themselves in a area (unless they are truly insane or suicidal) where they know their victims could be armed.

This knowledge comes from the mouths of the criminals themselves interviewed in prisons. They purposely avoid wanting to encounter armed victims. Hence why our level of "hot burglary" is very low in this country. Criminals tangling with armed citizens is very much a risk. A risk they prefer to avoid.

Why do you think you never see robberies at places like shooting ranges, gun shops or gun shows? Places with lots of guns a criminal would certainly want. But with lots and lots of armed citizens present. One of the safest places on this planet from a standpoint of crime is the NRA parking lot. You never hear about a mugging there.

"Control is about control: This betrays a fundamental massive lack of trust in authority doesn't it? How come my government isn't persecuting its unarmed people then? What are the odds of your elected politicians destroying you, simply because you were not allowed to stuff cabinet in your lounge full of guns? I mean, really, have you examined the liklihood of this outcome? It's a bit far fetched isn't it? And people have come at ME for Hollywood examples! Quelle Ironie."

In this, you are correct. I do distrust government. The natural state of Government is to acquire more and more power for itself. Have you ever known a Government to repeal something or scale itself back? If there is a Government that has done so throughout history, I want to see it. Government always grows.

The odds of my politicians destroying me depend precisely on whether or not my cabinet is stuffed with guns. It is very hard to impose their will on me by force when I have the means to resist by the same means. Every single totalitarian government and dictator throughout history without exception has only managed to acquire and hold their power by first disarming their subjects. Every. Single. One.

As long as private citizens in this country have guns, the Government will not dare act through direct force. They cannot. They don't have enough men or weapons of their own. They are outnumbered 10 to 1. Any attempt to disarm the populace here "for our better good" would be seen as a bad sign and one that would be resisted. You cannot impose true tyranny against an armed citizenry.

Indirect tyranny is a different story but even then, true tyranny is impossible.

You can abuse the citizenry. You can restrict them legislatively. You can tax them into submission. You can ignore them at the polls. You can sweep aside judicial rulings in favor of their "rights" and substitute your own interpretation. But you can't do all of them at the same time to achieve total control because to do so would be to invite revolution.

As the saying goes: "Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order."

Without arms, your freedom, your choices, your very life depend on the benevolence of the Government in place at the time. Without a means for the people to resist, what is to stop them from turning tyrannical? Not in the sense of sending in the jack-booted thugs to bang down your door and haul you off to re-education camps but in the sense they just restrict, regulate and legislate it all away one small piece at at a time.

What happens when you the people form up in a mob and demand it back? How will you achieve anything if the Government says "No"? Look how effective citizen protests are here to that end.

What If the Government refuses to stand for re-election and declares a "temporary" state of emergency that becomes permanent? Even if every shred of common sense and Constitutional precedent is violated, how could they be stopped?

Arms is the only way.

Does this betray a huge lack of faith in Government on my part? Absolutely. I don't believe Government acts for the betterment of the governed. It acts for itself. Betterment is a temporary condition. It is your acquiesence bought and paid for with your own money. To give you the sense you are getting something of value in your life when in the end, all you've got to show for it are shackles. Invisible and unseen but shackles nonetheless.

Given the history of your Government, how likely do you think their benevolence will continue if you can even call it that? How long before the bureaucracy and indifference across everything the Government touches consumes you?

Cameras that prevent nothing. Police watching the drama unfolding on those screens rather than doing something about it? People walking away from crime out of fear of prosecution which results in indifference to their fellow man. Government passing more and more regulations in an attempt to maintain order which only tightens the grip on the law-abiding in the name of "public safety" which in the end only results in more crime.

How long before such a Government in doing such acts takes police powers upon itself to quell the disorder? And when it does, will it be out of the motives of "betterment for society"? They may use those terms but it will be anything but betterment for you. Rather betterment and/or protection of themselves.

At what point do you call it tyranny? And when you do, you're already lost. It's too late then.

Look at Britain's own history for evidence of this. Gun control really started in your country out of the fear of labor strikes and revolt by the working classes during the First World War. The Government had to appease them because they feared them. The mob had arms and the means to achieve their ends if the Government pressed the matter. After the panic abated, however, the controls began. It took 80 years but they achieved the ends they hoped for. A citizenry stripped of the power to resist in three generations.

Now you are at their mercy. I admire your faith for believing it with be tender and just mercy. It is a faith I do not share. I cannot.

Sorry, this is a long-winded answer to a simple question. The short answer is: Because I do not trust the Government to be benign in its nature over time, I bear arms as a future hedge against it going tyrannical in any form. Are we there yet here? No. Could we get there? Yes.

The difference is the USA is going to have to do what the UK has done. Unlike you, we won't do so as quietly. "For the children" is a tired excuse of the gun controller and it doesn't play here. That's political reality.

As long as we have the ammo box, the government is restricted in what they can do to abuse the soap box, ballot box and jury box.

Does this answer your questions? If so, I ask the following:

1. What is "common sense" about a disarmed populace? Why do you trust the government (military and police) with guns but not your fellow citizens? See my argument regarding government benevolence on this.
2. Why do you place special restrictions on firearms but not other tools that can be used for violence? As I understand it, knife crime has soared in the UK. Criminals will use whatever is handy as a means of gaining power over their victims. Is knife control and licensing the next step and when knives are legislated away, what then? Registering sticks and stones?
3. All the laws in the world won't stop crime especially if the laws aren't enforced. So why punish the law abiding majority for the acts of the criminal minority? Is this not tyranny carried to its logical conclusion? A Government acting out of the best motives often produces the worst in unintended results. What then?

This a lot of absorb and I don't know if it is what you are looking for. Believe it or not, this really isn't about guns but about rights. Guns are merely the mechanism by which this starts. Likewise, I have plenty of ammo as well.

Feel free to fire away. I look forward to your response.