We’ve outlawed drugs and that TOTALLY solved the problem, right?

And that’s the stickler here folks.  Just outlawing something doesn’t prevent lunatics from engaging in the behavior.  When a person has murder in their heart, they will find a way to act on that impulse.  We can defend ourselves, help people that are mentally ill by protecting them from themselves, while protecting ourselves.  Banning guns will only leave the law abiding members of our society without a means to protect themselves from evil doers.


Please follow and like us:

Facebook Comments


Share this post


Add yours
  1. Avatar
    wespj 21 December, 2012 at 13:46 Reply

    To my knowledge, there’s no one in congress or the White House talking about banning ALL guns. The talk is about banning assault weapons — automatic and semi-automatic guns (and maybe high-capacity clips). Such a law would still protect hunters, sportsmen and the 2nd amendment rights of anyone who wants handguns and shotguns for self-protection.

    Now, would such a law end gun violence? Definitely not. Just as drug laws haven’t stopped drug use (as you point out), drunk driving laws haven’t stopped drunk driving, burglary laws haven’t stopped theft, etc. But it is ridiculous logic to conclude that laws against drugs, driving driving and burglary thus have no benefit and should be scrapped.

    The majority of evidence says that an assault weapons ban would reduce — though, yes, not eliminate — gun homicides. In fact, we had such a ban (albeit a loophole-filled one) from 1994 to 2004, and as I recall it didn’t lead to anarchy or a government dictatorship. It’s time to bring that ban back.

    • Avatar
      StacyOnTheRight 21 December, 2012 at 13:56 Reply

      You go ahead and turn your guns in then. Banning guns only applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals never pay attention to laws so the bans will only serve to create more victims and increase crime.

      Banning Semi automatic weapons would include 9 mm handguns and the like, creating a serious imbalance between citizens and the military and law enforcement. Not what the founders intended at all. The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt.

      Your idiotic focus on banning guns instead of the state of our mental health system is indicative of your weak minded, turn over and die mentality. If you prefer that criminals have all of the firepower, move to England , where crime is rampant and the law abiding are at the mercy of the criminal element.

    • Avatar
      johnpaulgettelman 15 April, 2013 at 21:51 Reply

      Burglary,drunk driving & theft prohibition,are not prohibition of consenting public market processes driven to underworld private market process!That is key to getting a handle on learning how to not make indiscriminate gross generalizing & mixing of unrelated examples of prohibiting acts! There is no interpersonal demand for customers to be robbed ,stolen from,or anything else representing being violated by theft!There is however,an interpersonal market for customer demand to get drunk or high!That does not mean there is a demand for drunk or drugged driving!If we had adult sized bumper cars,so we could go inside a drunk driving passenger trip,maybe then there might be a demand for drunk driving as a kind of learning experience at the fair!But the principle of prohibitionISM,is blocking consenting adult voluntary individual social choice,in the public market process! Gun prohibition of any kind form degree,in part whole or anything else blocking intepersonal trade,simply drives the public market process,underground,to be an underworld private market rather than public market world! The reason Alcohol prohibition is akin to drug prohibition is because of the individual social exchange of public market exchange,between consenting adults in suplly & demand process! There would be a demand for interpersonal consenting adult public trade of guns of all prohibited properties!It would just be driven into the underworld private criminal self regulated or diregulated underground market!That gives birth to a whole underworld violating the law practice!A whole industry, of price is no object,criminal industrial,mercantilism,forms from prohibiting consenting public market world!

    • Avatar
      johnpaulgettelman 15 April, 2013 at 22:28 Reply

      Disregulating was the term I wanted to use at the end of my comments! I made a typo! The idea is when we try to regulate indivfidual social exchange,we cause disregulating of our great social economic exchange!Every little individual social margin of blocking,simply drives up the public market price,for the prohibited object,or process! The profit margins of prohibited consenting individual social commerce,are concentrated to monopoly insiders underworld cartels!These underworld mercantile exchanges,institutionalize progressive cummulative compounding of the price insurance tax on underworld trade! This attracts a whole industry of high risk investing,high rollers already out side the civil social margins of public market exchange! Underworld markets are not subject to the great social self regulating processes of public market competition! So prohibition is in essence,simply government protecting of underworld protection monopoly rackets! We simply subsidize prohibited trade in consenting adult commerce,by the act of prohibition,by way of driving it into the underworld monopoly cartel pricing process!

  2. Avatar
    wespj 21 December, 2012 at 14:50 Reply

    I generally respect your blog for being straightforward and accurate. It’s disappointing to find your reply so wildly untruthful.

    You write about my “idiotic focus on banning guns,” but that isn’t my sole focus. I definitely think we need a better mental health system too. And, again, I don’t want to ban all guns.

    You write that I’d “prefer that criminals have all of the firepower.” But that isn’t true. I believe strongly in highly armed, well-trained police and security force. And I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment and a citizen’s right to bear arms. I just don’t believe that right comes without any restrictions. (And if you are against private ownership of tanks or anti-aircraft missels or nuclear weapons then you favor some restrictions too.) Further, I think the an assault weapons ban should be crafted to only outlaw those weapons that can kill large numbers of people quickly. If language is need to protect a 9mm handgun, for example, I’m all for that.

    You wrote “The bans will only serve to create more victims and increase crime.” But that isn’t true either. You cite England, so let’s use that as an example. It happens that I lived there for a year and never once felt at the mercy of any criminal element. England’s rates of assault, rape, etc. are generally similar to ours. Where there’s a huge difference in our crime rate versus theirs is gun murders. In a given year, England (together with Wales) sees about 50 gun homicides. Five – zero. The USA sees around 11,000! After you account for their smaller population, their gun homicide rate works out to about 3% of ours. In fact, choose any developed country you want (Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, etc.) and their gun homicide rate is hugely lower. What do you suppose accounts for that?

    • Avatar
      StacyOnTheRight 21 December, 2012 at 15:25 Reply

      It doesn’t matter what accounts for their lower rate if your intention is to ban weapons or restrict citizens access to them. The gun ban that I’m referring to just took effect a year ago. So you’re still living there?

      The idea that any new laws will help in this situation is ridiculous. Your focus on the guns instead if the real issues surrounding the tragedy is a part if the problem. I’m glad that you enjoy the blog. If you think I’m reacting wildly to your comment, you are free to do as you please.

      That doesn’t change my instincts on what you posted. I’m against further infringement upon law abiding citizens right to purchase, own, carry, and use weapons to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. More laws will not prevent more school shootings.

      And more discussion will not change my mind.

  3. Avatar
    wespj 21 December, 2012 at 16:03 Reply

    My original point was about the absurdity of your drug-laws-haven’t-stopped-all-drug-use-therefore-we-shouldn’t-have-gun-laws line of logic. Do you see how you could use that to argue against banning ANYTHING.

    On guns, I’m not trying to change your mind. But I am asking for some consistency. If your argument is that the constitution allows citizens to have semi-automatic weapons regardless of whatever benefit/harm that brings to society then fine. I 100% respect that. (I actually have quite a bit of sympathy for that view and believe that many things that are currently banned in the U.S. shouldn’t be.)

    But if you are saying that gun laws (whether constitutional or not) can’t help reduce gun murders, then what causes other developed countries to have a *drastically* lower gun homicide rates very much matters. And your failure to examine that is telling. The preponderance of unbiased, factual evidence from other countries (and from America’s own assault weapons ban) says that it would help.

    (FYI, because you asked, my wife is from England and we frequently travel there. But I’m American and currently live in the US.)

    • Avatar
      StacyOnTheRight 21 December, 2012 at 16:29 Reply

      Your original comment missed my point. Prohibition was a nightmare that failed. Our current war on drugs is a dismal failure wrought with corruption. I don’t really care if you liked my post or disagree with my thoughts on this.

      Your idea to place more restrictions on law abiding citizens through more bans on high capacity weapons is wrong. That’s my opinion and that’s it.

      It doesn’t matter if you attempt to insult my intelligence by accusing me of being ignorant of statistics, which is wrong – I’ve read up on them- or if you offer two ways to think about it and I choose neither.

      There are distinct differences between the US and every other nation. Policies that have worked in smaller countries with much smaller populations, tiny land masses and vastly different national identities make certain that a one sized, “it worked in Britain so by golly it will work here” will be a veritable failure.

      In America solutions need input from our citizens as we have a representative government. Banning guns in the current political climate will bring outright civil war.

      And again: guns are not the problem, lunatics are. Have a great evening and Merry Christmas!

  4. Avatar
    wespj 21 December, 2012 at 18:31 Reply

    I totally agree: Just because something works in England does not mean it will work in the U.S..

    But if something works in England, and France, and Germany, and Sweden, and Italy (home of the mafia), and Japan, and Spain, and Australia and Canada and *every* other developed country, then isn’t it incumbent on us, especially in the aftermath of Newtown, to at least think rationally about the causes behind our astronomical gun murder rate?

    The U.S. has, on average, 20 times more gun homicides per capita than those countries. That’s 2,000%! Do you think we have 2,000% more lunatics per capita? Are we culturally 2,000% less law abiding? Do we play 2,000% more violent video games? Do we provide 2,000% worse mental health care?

    Those questions sound rhetorical, but I really am curious what you think.

    Your previous answer was “It doesn’t matter what accounts for their lower rate” which is just sticking your head in the sand (which, if I may say so, doesn’t seem like your style).

    Merry Christmas to you too.

    • Avatar
      johnpaulgettelman 15 April, 2013 at 23:00 Reply

      Just who do you think is intelligent enough to control,do background checks or anything else to regulate the public gun trade?HillaryClinton cannot even distinguish CivilSocialArabs from klanazi kamikazi Arabs! Pres.Obama was not able to avoid making indiscriminate comments mixing up CivilSocial PalestineArabs with UnCivilAntiSocial PalestineArabs!They are going to regulate who gets the rights to bear arms,while we are facing a neonazi kamikazi axis of Arabist Imperial identity theft against CivilSocial Islam?What do you think Darfur was,if it was not a war of racist ArabEmpire genocide against Civilsocial African Islamic Darfur nonArabs!But Hillary & Pres.Obama cannot stop being indiscriminately in love with their “Progressive” idolotry of the state & the state as the defining social frame of reference! That is why “Progressive” teachings cannot handle the ArabWorld street mobs The “Progressive” repeating of the engraved images of “their is no link between Saddam & BinLaden”,was the Engraved “Progressive”idolotry of the state as social framework!So to this day,”Progressives” cannot look under the radar of ArabEmpire confederate states,to see an Arab Empire demand for Arabist imperial CEZAR Strongman!But you want them to control any kind of weapons,or background checks?

Post a new comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Enjoying SOTR? Sharing is caring!!