The Frightening Excesses of the Gun Control Mentality

The psychology of gun control is Socialist, a fear of fellow citizens, a desire for a strong master to protect the subject, a refusal to accept responsibility in ones own life. It is part and parcel of the same patterns of behavior which caused the USSR to fail. The RKBA is clearly a necessary and Natural Right.

Responsible gun training teaches individuals self-control and responsibility. Ignorance of guns makes them become objects of worship and fear. As religious icons of power and fear they become intensely attractive to certain kinds of people with poor self-esteem. This results in things like the Columbine Massacre. The killers in assaults like that have the same attitude towards guns that gun-control advocates have. They think about them in the same way and they want them for the same reasons that the gun-control advocates are afraid of allowing anyone to own them. This neurotic attitude towards guns is strongest in places where gun-control is strongest, though it has begun to spread to other areas. It is destroying healthy gun culture in this country.

It is sad, but true, that familiarity breeds contempt. No one should ever handle guns with contempt, but lots of careless accidents every year involving people who work with guns for a living shows that familiarity can breed contempt even of guns. Such familiarity does destroy the cult of the gun which is such a problem in the US today. Of the two sides, the gun control advocates seem to have the deepest, most emotional, most religious attitude towards guns. Guns to gun control advocates seem to have the emotional impact of the chthonic deities of ancient Greece. Dark and terrible gods to be propitiated in secret ceremonies in the dark of night.

Responsible gun training develops a Citizens self-control, his self-discipline, and his sense of personal responsibility. It teaches him to behave responsibly while handling dangerous items. It also destroys the mythic cult of the gun as an object of veneration, a magical key to power, and an awesome icon of fear and terror. It is this cult which makes the gun attractive to emotionally unstable individuals. The murderers of Columbine and the gun control advocates are mirror images of one another in their attitude towards guns. Without the dark worship of the gun by gun control advocates the seductive image of the gun as the dark icon of power that produces such behaviors would be weakened or non-existent.

Gun Control laws are inevitably married to this perception of the gun as an icon of power and respect. The forbidden exerts a powerful, even magical, seduction because it is forbidden. This creates a trap for young adults who do not feel respected. For young adults in school who are bullied and oppressed guns become the magical path to power and status. For young adults in the inner city guns become the badge of status and respect. This results in gang bangers and incidents like Columbine. Wherever the need for belonging, the earned respect of others, and self-actualization are frustrated by various factors, the rarity of guns created by gun control laws, coupled with the fear and awe that guns apparently inspire to produce such laws seduce young adults into seeing guns as the solution to their personal problems. The depth of this worship of the gun by gun control advocates is frighteningly illuminated by a quote from a teacher that was featured in a major news magazine around the time of Columbine. She stated that the idea of having a gun in her classroom, merely as a teaching aid, left her petrified and trembling with fear. With guns inspiring that kind of reaction in areas where they are illegal, how can they not seduce young adults with problems.

In a society where guns are relatively common and the rules of responsible firearms handling are taught and widely understood, the cult of the gun and massacres like Columbine are less likely. Students would not look on guns as a tool for impressing and controlling others or a magical icon of power which would allow them to command others. They will know them as dangerous tools of limited power with specific rules for handling them.

Instead of the quasi-worship which the abuse of guns breeds in gun-control areas, a strong culture of responsible gun use should develop nothing but contempt for those who abuse them. This psychological barrier against gun abuse is a more potent tool for preventing the abuse of guns than all the gun control laws, married as they inevitably are, to the neurotic worship of guns as icons of fear and power, can ever be. You cannot separate gun control laws from the neurotic fear and worship of guns because they are based on and originate in fear of the aweful power of guns. Fear and religious worship are tied together throughout history. Let us again quote De Tocqueville from his “Democracy in America” discussing freedom of assembly;

Gun Control Attitudes Carried to even more extreme Excesses

It is not only guns which inspire this irrational fear and worship. Anything dangerous is similarly feared and advocates of gun control also advocate outlawing all other dangerous things. They favor outlawing not just guns but anything which can be used as a weapon. The idea of an acceptable risk is entirely incomprehensible to people who cite statistics showing that guns are used around 1 million times a year in self-defense and cause 30,000 deaths a year. (Gun Control sites say that the Gun Rights people exaggerate this figure at 2 million times a year and it is actually only 1 million times a year on this scale it makes no difference when compared to 30,000 deaths a year.)

There is a great deal of controversy over this issue. Both sides consistently accuse the other side of poor methodology. The lowest estimates of use of guns in self defense state that they are used only 108,000 times a year in self-defense. This was from the National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) 1993. Compare this to gun deaths of law abiding citizens each year. Generally the estimate quoted is 30,000 gun deaths a year total. Most of those do not involve law abiding citizens, most occur among criminals who own guns illegally and would not be prevented from owning guns by any kind of laws. Accidental firearms deaths in 1995 were 1,441. Source National Center for Health Statistics. So, of the Americans who own guns in the US not for criminal purposes, 108,000 of them will use those guns in self-defense every year, and 1,441 will suffer an accidental death from guns. Americans owning guns will use them much more often in self-defense than they will suffer deaths from such guns. It is 74.9479 times more likely, using the most extreme statistics cited by gun control advocates that an American will use a gun in self-defense than that a member of his family will be killed by that gun in an accident. This is using the absolutely smallest number of self-defense actions involving guns cited by gun control advocates.

The debate over these numbers is heated and extreme. The highest estimate of gun use in self-defense is around 2.5 million. Dr. Gary Kleck who is generally considered a gun rights advocate estimates around 2 million self-defense uses of guns annually. In 1994 the Department of Justice sponsored a study “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt for text and http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf for an Adobe PDF copy of the study. This study found that self-defense uses of guns occurred about 1.5 million times a year. Using the DOJ government statistics, an American owning a gun is 1040.9437 times more likely to use his gun in self-defense than to have someone in his family accidentally killed by that gun.

Why are they arguing over these numbers? If you are 75 more times more likely to need a gun for self-defense than to have someone in your family accidentally die as a result of gun ownership, it is pretty obvious that owning a gun for self-defense is a valid, rational choice. The gun-control advocates most extreme statistics support the idea of owning a gun for self-defense so strongly that they would seem to prove that Americans should own guns.

Yet the gun control advocates insist that the difference in numbers prove that the gun-rights advocates are wrong. The difference in numbers is a distinction without a difference. It doesn’t prove the case against gun ownership it simply provides a basis to attack the other side. It is saying that the other side is wrong in detail so it is wrong in fact. This kind of argument can be created in any social science field because there is always room for argument about the numbers in detail. The real numbers are probably close to those produced by the DOJ study. These numbers which show that an American who owns a gun is more than a thousand times more likely to need that gun for self-defense than to see a member of his family accidentally killed by that gun clearly demonstrate that the case for ownership of guns for self-defense is a rational, valid case.

The ratio of violent crimes prevented by guns each year to deaths caused by them is similar to the ratio of vaccinations to deaths caused by vaccinations. “A Model for Smallpox Vaccination Policy”, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMsa025075v1 by Samuel A. Bozzette, M.D., Ph.D., Rob Boer, Ph.D., Vibha Bhatnagar, M.D., M.P.H., Jennifer L. Brower, Ph.D., Emmett B. Keeler, Ph.D., Sally C. Morton, Ph.D., and Michael A. Stoto, Ph.D estimates deaths due to smallpox vaccination of the population for smallpox at 482 deaths nationally. This estimate falls into the same order of magnitude as the number of people who die in homes due to firearms accidents, 1441 annually. This is assuming the vaccination of the entire population. More than half the homes in the US own guns, that number is far greater than the 1.5 million who probably use them in self-defense each year. In terms of the numerical relationship between deaths from gun ownership and gun ownership and the relationship between smallpox vaccinations and deaths from vaccinations, there is no significant difference. The relative risk is about the same. Assuming half the people in the US live in homes with guns, or about 150 million and 1441 deaths from guns in such homes, the ratio of gun ownership to gun deaths is 104,094 to 1. Assuming a population of 300 million all vaccinated, the ratio is 622,406.6 to 1.

This is admittedly 6 times as high, or low in terms of risk as that associated with gun ownership, but it falls into the same order of magnitude, ridiculously low compared to the cost of not vaccinating if necessary. The study advises against vaccination unless there is a high risk of a smallpox attack on a scale effecting a significant portion of the population, an entire city or multiple cities. Now an entire city has a population of millions likely to be exposed to the virus, ditto for multiple attacks. If you compare that to the 1.5 million homeowners who use guns in self-defense each year, the number of people exposed to smallpox as compared to the number exposed to violence, the risk to benefit ratio remains similar. In the same order of magnitude, but balancing towards gun ownership being even more beneficial than smallpox vaccination. If you apply the reasoning of qualified medical professionals to vaccination to the issue of gun ownership, the medical profession should be as united in defense of gun ownership for self-defense as they are in defense of vaccination against disease.

The ratio of people who own guns to people who are killed by legally, legitimately owned guns is probably far larger than that of vaccinations to deaths caused by vaccinations. The same people who want to outlaw guns frequently get enlisted in similar programs to outlaw vaccinations. The emotion and the evaluation of evidence are the same. Medical personnel should be deeply embarrassed by this and their general position on this issue.

Most recently the CDC has come out with a study stating that there is no evidence that gun control laws prevent gun crime.

If it Saves only One Child

It’s for the Children is increasingly the mantra of the movement to turn the US into a totalitarian police state. It is used to justify violating the right of a family to privacy, while the same people support the right to privacy to justify terminating the lives of unborn children. It is used to justify screams for more and more draconic legislation in every realm of American life, and thus naturally is used to attempt to justify gun control law.

Statistics in this area are subject to the same kind of distortion that they are in all areas of this debate. One of the most commonly cited statistics is as follows;

http://www.sbcoalition.org/articles/article.asp?Article=10

This is widely repeated all the time and would mean that at least 3,650 children are killed by guns every year. This article goes on to mention that the statistics includes teenagers as well as children.

Teenagers are not children, especially when they are 18 or 19 or 20 years old. This classification of young adults as children is factually in error. It is one of the grossest factual errors in popular politics today. Attempting to treat teenagers legally as children is a grotesque attempt to ignore factual realities. The law must recognize a difference between teenagers and children and recognize that teenagers are young adults. A great number of these homicides occur among young adults involved in criminal activity. This is reflected in the statistics on such deaths which show that they occur more prevalently in high crime areas like the black inner city.

This particular article states;

Think about that. You know, if you know anything at all about the Gun Control issue that California has among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. This is widely certified to be true. California receives an A- on its gun control report card from the Brady campaign. The only state with a higher grade and A is Maryland.

The rate of children killed by guns in California is almost twice as high as the national average. The authors of this article cite this as evidence that gun control laws prevent child gun deaths. It is difficult to understand how anyone can read an article like this and not question its reasoning, but gun control advocates do so every day in almost every article advocating more restrictive gun laws. The following statistics on rate of gun deaths to children are taken from “The Help Network Firearm Injury Prevention State Status Report”.

There does not seem to be any consistent relationship between restrictive gun laws and children being killed by firearms. The worst states receiving an F were twice as bad as California and the best states receiving an F were twice as good as California. California is the poster child for enacting the Liberal agenda of increasingly Socialist programs including outlawing guns in the US. It is also generally the worst or among the worst States in the Union with regards to the problems which these reforms are supposed to fix.

What about the other states which received A’s from the Brady Campaign? Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, all received A’s or A-’s. The rate for Maryland 18^th in population and 42^nd in size was .7. The rate for Massachusetts 13^th in population was .2. Maryland was the only state to receive an A and it has one of the highest rates of firearms deaths to children per hundred thousand in the nation.

Looking at these figures there does not seem to be any obvious correlation between the population of a state and its rate of gun deaths to children, between the population density of a state and the rate of gun deaths to children or between its gun law report card and the rate of gun deaths to children. It is useful here to look at some charts made from data available on the web to any Citizen.

This chart was made by assigning a numerical value to the Brady letter grades for the states on passing firearms laws. The second value used was the rate of the states in rate of firearms deaths per 100,000 from HELP. States with the highest rate of firearms deaths are to the left, those with the lowest to the right. As you can see the Brady Grade goes all over the place with relation to actual firearms deaths.

The table above was created to compare population density and the rank of firearms deaths on a state by state basis. Low population density states are on the left and high population density states are on the left. The dark line at the bottom shows a rank from 1 to 50 in rate of firearms deaths. The number 1 state has the highest rate of deaths, the number 50 state the lowest. The lower the dot in this line the higher the rate of deaths. It is clear that the higher the population density of the state the lower the rate of firearms deaths. This is the opposite of what a person would expect, and it is not totally consistent, but it is there. The data here can be misleading. A state can have a low average population density with two or three high crime cities where the population density is very high. This chart illustrates how data at this level, state by state comparison might be misleading, or how unexpected relationships might exist.

In this chart the raw size of a state in thousands of square miles is compared to the rank in rate of firearms deaths. The smallest states are on the left, the largest on the right. As you can see, the smaller the state the fewer firearms deaths per hundred thousand. The states on the left of the chart rank 48, 42, 47, 49, etc. on the rate of firearms deaths. This is the strongest visual correlation that I was able to find comparing various single factors to rate of firearms deaths across the states. What possible relationship could the raw geographic size of a state have to its rate of firearms deaths? Should we pass a law dividing all the big states into small states to cut down on firearms deaths? Do these states have other things in common besides being small geographically which explain the correlation?

The names of the states are Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. All of these states with the exception of Hawaii are New England states. They share a common culture, a common history, a common ethnic background as well as being small in size. This shows how simple correlations between things can be misleading. It would appear that the size of the state is not related except coincidentally to its rate of firearms death. Rather, its history and culture are determinants of its rate of firearms deaths.

The HELP site has information on firearms death by region as well as by state. Indeed the Northeast ranks lowest of all regions in the US in firearms deaths. The Midwest ranks second highest. The West ranks 3^rd, and the South ranks highest in firearms deaths. Again, such large divisions of states might be misleading, some of these regions might be more culturally and historically homogenous than others.

Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are the ten states with the lowest rates of firearms deaths. There is a predominance of New England states, seven of the ten states are New England states. If you take the ten worst states in rate of firearms deaths they are Alaska, Nevada, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Tennessee, Arkansas and Montana. There is a predominance of Southern States, but it is not absolute, only half of these ten states are from the South. The South is not as homogenous a group as the Northeast. Texas should probably be classed in the West culturally.

If you compare the history of California and Texas there are remarkable similarities. Both were originally Spanish possessions, both had Anglo settlers lead a revolution against the Spanish or Mexican authorities. Both were independent states for several years before joining the US. California experienced the gold rush, and Texas experienced the oil (black gold) rush. Ethnically and historically they are quite similar. Texas is 28^th in rank of firearms deaths with a rate of 10.6. California is 33^rd with rate of 9.2. The difference between these states is less than that between many states in the same region, regardless if it is the Northeast, South, Midwest or West. This is despite having quite radically different approaches to gun control, welfare, education, and virtually every other issue. Geography is not the factor here but culture and attitude. Laws are not the factor, no two states could have as different an approach to gun laws than California and Texas, yet they are close to the same in gun deaths. Welfare, social programs, etc. apparently are not determinant. It appears that the things which determine a states rate of firearms deaths were laid down a hundred or two hundred years ago in its history and culture.

This does not mean that things cannot change for the better. Things have been changing for the better over the last couple of decades crime of all types have been going down in the US while they have been climbing in England and Europe. The question is, are those changes in any way related to anything we are doing, or do they happen automatically as people in each generation react to the world around them?

Patterns have been seen in history by many historians. Some generations are seen as heroic, others as revolutionary, others as contemplative or introspective. There are undoubtedly historical cycles in crime as well as revolution and other social issues. Undoubtedly one generation is more law abiding than another, another more revolutionary and violent, etc. Doubtless the patterns are to some degree the reaction of children growing up in different environments. Children growing up in a high crime rate period may react by becoming more law abiding. Children growing up in a low crime rate period may react by taking more risks and breaking more laws. A hundred years from now as the South and Northeast cycle through their historical Cycles on their own schedule the South may have the lowest rate of firearms deaths and the Northeast the highest. The degree to which anything we do actually causes an effect on crime, rather than just reflecting our reaction to crime is open to question.

A generation prepared to reject violence and violent crime might react by passing harsher laws against it, or gun control laws, or any number of other measures which seem like they might operate to cut crime. The degree that these laws actually effect anything as opposed to the simple movement of the people away from accepting crime is an open question. The laws themselves may be only a symptom of people changing their behaviors. Once enacted, though, they are on the books and violating them is a crime.

This is a problem. A multiplicity of laws is a great evil. If every new generation passes a new multiplicity of laws soon there will be so many laws that nothing is legal. There are no simplistic answers here. It is clear that complex factors govern the rate of violence and crime, including violence to children, not simplistic ones like population, size, or gun ownership. Simple minded “common sense” solutions like gun control simply do not address the complex realities of these phenomena. Instead they create a multitude of laws, increasingly destroy the legitimate rights and liberties of Citizens, and create in the long run a police state governed by edict.

Studies within a given state, such as California or Maryland do suggest that if it has a high rate of gun death by children passage of laws about safe gun storage and the felony prosecution of adults responsible in the deaths of children due to firearms will reduce such deaths. Whether such reduction is permanent and the result of the law or temporary and merely the result of people impressed by the publicity involved in passing the law being more careful for awhile is open to question.

This all quotes statistics mostly from gun control organizations and groups. Gun rights advocates cut the number of children killed, and otherwise present a different statistical picture. No need to do that, as the statistics presented by the gun control advocates themselves do not support their case. In many cases the numbers for states with restrictive gun laws are worse than those without such laws, this is cited in the gun control peoples own articles and columns. Yet none of them even notice these things.

Outlawing Everything which is Dangerous

This is a kind of religious fanaticism and extremism which fails to deal with reality. The real world is a dangerous place and it is simply impossible to outlaw everything that is dangerous. Attempts to do so cannot fail to place so many laws against so many necessary or routine things into effect that the US must become a police state.

Irrational Fear and Daily Sporting Activities

Some remarkable examples of this kind of law are laws against karate weapons. Karate is a martial art originating in Okinawa during its occupation by Japan. Yes, Okinawa was an independent country conquered by Japan. Typical of any authority reducing a populace to subjects, the Japanese Samurai made it illegal for the Okinawans to own any weapons.

In order to defend themselves, the Okinawans developed martial arts techniques using common agricultural instruments. The bo is a long stick of wood used to distribute weight across the shoulders. The farmer would have two buckets one on either end of the stick to carry water to rice paddies. Those evil “chucks” of Bruce Lee fame are the humble flail which the peasant would use to separate the husk from the grain in his rice. The terrifying Tonfa is another example of a peasant flail. Kama are a small sickle used to harvest the rice. Rodale Press (the organic gardening people) has a book about traditional Japanese organic farming in which you can see photos of these “terrifying weapons” being used in traditional peasant farming work.

Apparently weapons control in Okinawa did not manage to disarm the conquered people. The people there developed methods of using farming tools as weapons.

In the US today, these simple agricultural tools are frequently viewed with petrified terror. Certainly the sight of a Japanese peasant doing his field chores would bring any US school today to full stop, force a call to the National Guard to suppress the terrorist activities, and possibly force the Attorney General to announce a Red level terror alert. There is something wrong with people who have heart attacks at the sight of farming tools. This desire to outlaw anything dangerous regardless of how legitimate its daily use might be is not limited merely to Karate Weapons. In Holland baseball bats have been outlawed because they can be used as weapons.

Irrational Fear and Freedom of the Press

One book which is constantly being touted as the kind of thing which should be outlawed is “The Anarchist Cookbook”. This book is the example of horrible knowledge which no one should be allowed to possess. Gun Control advocates shudder in their sleep at the name. It was composed by a young man in a public library. He has since regretted writing it, and has requested that it no longer be published. The owners of the copyright continue to print it because of all the publicity. It is frequently shouted that it is available in a moments search to anyone with access to the World Wide Web. Like most such issues the most passionate speakers apparently know the least about what they are saying. The owners of the copyright find it quite profitable and work hard to protect their copyright. They keep a close watch on the web and close down any website which features the book. It cannot be found on the web. It can only be purchased from its publishers or second hand. Any intelligent High School Student could duplicate any formulas or recipes to be found in it after 30 or 40 minutes research at a local library. The story including letters from the author and a college friend of his can be found at http://www.righto.com/anarchist-cookbook-faq.html

Paladin Press is infamous for the ‘evil’ books it sells. It was sued recently because someone used one of its books to commit a murder. Obviously the book wasn’t a very good guide as the person got caught. This should clue you in about something. Not all the books Paladin Press sells are rip-offs. Some are fascinating and worthwhile. Generally though, those with the ‘evil’ titles are rip-offs. They are sold to urban professional types who want a hint of danger and excitement in their lives. (One of the chief executives of Paladin Press is on record as saying this.) Possibly they add a sense of the outlaw and romantic to humdrum lives. Who knows possibly aging yuppies find them helpful in seducing aging female yuppies. Possibly selling soft-core sex aids to aging yuppies is a public service of a sort. They are mostly hype and little substance. Any intelligent human being could find out more about the same subject by spending three or four hours in a public library. On the average they cost about 20 dollars apiece. If you want a library of death, you can shop in the local second hand bookstores, Goodwill, and Salvation Army. Spending 1 dollar or so apiece for old chemistry texts, firefighting manuals, etc. will get you a shelf full of books with more deadly information in them for the same price.

An example is in order. “Silent Death” has a wonderful dedication. “This book is dedicated to my enemies without whose cooperation it would not have been possible.” It is supposed to be a handbook on poisoning people written by “Uncle Fester” a qualified chemist who writes under a pseudonym. Chapter 6 is “Poisons from Nature”. It mentions 3 plants which are poisonous. Any of which any reader should already be familiar with from watching the evening news. A much better source for knowledge on how to kill people with poisons is available at the Purdue Indiana University. http://vet.purdue.edu/depts/addl/toxic/cover1.htm. It mentions at least 69 plants. It is conveniently indexed so you can look them up by alphabetical order, level of toxicity, scientific name, common name, etc. Each description says where you are likely to find the poisonous plant in nature. How much of the plant must be eaten to poison an animal by body weight. What the exact toxins involved are and what symptoms to expect. Even which ones can be mistaken for common vegetables. A better handbook of how to poison someone would be difficult to find.

This information is made available as a public service so that farmers can protect their livestock. Pet owners can protect their pets. Parents can protect their children. Every mature human being should know a lot of the plants listed here just so that they can protect their children and pets. Many parents and pet owners seek such knowledge for just this reason. There are hundreds of sites on the web associated with agricultural and veterinary institutions which have this kind of information posted. Anyone who knows enough about poisonous plants to protect his pets or children from the dangers they pose knows enough to brew up a pretty good batch of poison if he decides he really has to kill someone.

The knowledge that saves is the knowledge that kills. This is a principal which has been known since ancient times. To quote the Hippocratic Oath;

The ancients knew quite well that anyone who knew enough about medicines and plants to help heal also knew enough to kill. It is impossible to outlaw dangerous knowledge. The same knowledge that keeps you safe can be used to kill others. The same knowledge you need to protect your children can be used to kill your children. You cannot outlaw dangerous plants because hundreds of them grow wild all around you in every part of the world.

If you want to start fires there are few better guides than books on firefighting which detail how different kinds of fires start. If you want to know how to brew poisonous gases, make explosives, or create incendiaries, there is nothing like a manual of chemistry safety regulations which tells you what chemicals not to store together and why.

Any intelligent person can take any book written to make the world a safer place and ‘reverse engineer’ it to acquire a handbook for committing murder and mayhem. Such people can also always find a way to use a common farming implement or tool as a deadly weapon. It is literally impossible to outlaw dangerous things. Attempting to do so only creates a widespread ignorance and fear which is more dangerous.

That which saves can also be used to kill. Common farming implements become deadly weapons in the hands of a martial artist. The knowledge of poisonous plants which saves a child can be used to poison an enemy. The knowledge of safety which prevents fires in the house can be used to start fires in other places. Guns which are widely used to protect the home and person are occasionally used improperly.

It is frightening to watch people stand up and seriously talk about outlawing these kind of books and tools and saying that this kind of knowledge should not be available to the general public. It illustrates how little people who make laws know about the subjects they are making laws about. The fact that gun control advocates and the entire body of people who favor this kind of legislation do not realize that what they are asking is impossible is troubling. Each step inevitably fails to accomplish the desired goal. Then another step is taken another law is passed. Eventually everything is illegal and everyone is a criminal.

This is unavoidable, these things can never be truly outlawed. It is literally impossible to outlaw all dangers. It is literally impossible to outlaw all weapons. A reasonable level of safety is all that is possible. Laws prohibiting dangerous knowledge and tools are parchment guarantees. Laws that cannot accomplish their purpose. They do make people weaker, more ignorant, and more dependent on Authority. They help to convert Citizens to Subjects.

How Many Guns and How Much Ammunition

As a Nuclear Weapons Security Guard in the Navy I carried a .1911 regularly. As a voluntary police officer in Virginia Beach I carried a .357. As an NCO in the Army I carried the .1911, the M16, and the Beretta when it came out. In all of these positions I was required to qualify with the weapon to various levels of proficiency. My job in the Navy was aiming and launching nuclear missiles. My job in the Army was operating the M1 main battle tank. I know a little, not a lot, but a little about weapons. With this background, some of the things that gun control advocates say, some of the things which newspapers say about guns are truly terrifying in the depth of ignorance and thoughtlessness which they show.

One of these was a statement about a teenager with a gun. It went something like this, “He had accumulated 100 rounds of ammunition”. Only someone absolutely and completely ignorant of firearms practice and training could be impressed by this statement. Let us assume that you favor responsible firearms ownership. If you favor responsible firearms ownership you want the owners to practice with their firearms enough to know how to use them effectively and safely. In order to practice with a firearm, you have to use ammunition. In order to qualify with a firearm you have to use ammunition. Let us take some examples of how much ammunition you need to fire just to qualify by most standards.

You will note that the test for qualification always seems to include a minimum of 50 rounds fired. If the test requires 50 rounds to be fired, then you have to shoot lots and lots more ammunition than 50 rounds before you take the test. Assume that you want a person who owns a gun to practice with it enough to actually know what they are doing. They will need to go to a range and fire 50 or 100 rounds once a month or so. This does not take long. You can shoot 50 rounds off in less than 10 minutes with virtually any weapon. If you are going to spend an hour at the range once a month then you are likely to fire two hundred or two hundred and fifty round a month. Any responsible firearms owner should therefore be expected to have two or three hundred rounds or more in their possession to practice with the next time they go to the range. They will more than a thousand rounds of ammunition easily in a year doing a minimal practice to remain competent and safe.

Ammunition is like everything else. It costs less if you buy it in bulk. Buying a case of 1000 rounds costs less than buying 1000 rounds in one box of fifty at a time. Responsible firearms owners therefore must buy ammunition by the case to cut down on the cost of training to use their guns responsibly. Cutting down training costs makes training less expensive making it possible to do more training and therefore to be better trained and therefore safer. Anyone who hasn’t owned at least a thousand rounds of ammunition at a time probably doesn’t take training with their weapon seriously enough to be a really responsible gun owner.

This is simple reality if you know anything about guns, gun handling, and training qualification to use guns responsibly. Firearms owners who do not own enough ammunition to practice with regularly are more frightening than those who do. The idea that it is frightening or terrifying for someone to own 100 rounds of ammunition is irrational, insane, completely out of touch with reality. It demonstrates the tremendous depths of personal ignorance from which the majority of gun control commentaries are written.

Let us say that you are a responsible gun owner who owns a handgun for self defense. You should probably own two weapons. One your main defense weapon, probably something in a middle caliber; .38, .357, 9mm, .45, etc. In addition to this, again to cut down on expenses in practice, you should own basically the same gun in a .22 caliber. .22 ammunition is very inexpensive and allows you to practice the mechanics of gun handling with less expense. It does not duplicate recoil characteristics and sound so you still need to practice with the main weapon. You will also need ammunition to practice with. Ammunition is sold in cases for most weapons and bricks for .22s. A brick can be 500 or 5000 rounds. A responsible gun owner will buy a case or brick for each and replace them when regular practice starts making him run low. At any given time he should have several hundred to a couple of thousand rounds of ammunition in his home.

Assume that you also engage in firearms handling for hunting or sports. This will mean owning several other weapons. Something around .223 caliber for small game. Something around .308 for medium range game. Something around .30-06 for bigger game. A shotgun, probably two or three. Ammunition to go with these weapons, possibly a .22 caliber version of some of them to practice with.

A responsible gun owner, simply to be responsible, and to know enough to handle guns responsibly will own enough guns and ammunition to give the average gun control advocate a heart attack from hysterical fear and terror. Simple responsible gun ownership requires this.

Gun control advocates know so little about guns that the minimum requirements for responsible gun ownership and handling terrify them into frightened screaming hysterics. They then want the Nanny State to make owning such ‘arsenals’ of weapons and ammunition illegal. This ignorance coupled with the passionate desire to make laws based on ignorance and hysteria is terrifying.

Laws requiring every gun owner to own at least a thousand rounds of ammunition to practice with every year would make far more sense. In fact laws along such lines were recommended in “The Federalist Papers” as quoted at the beginning of this discussion.

It was clearly the idea of the Founding Fathers that every able bodied Citizen would own a gun and ammunition and even be required to muster once a year to show that he owned it and it was maintained and ready for use. If we were to implement the militia as it was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights every head of household in the US would be required to own a fully automatic assault rifle and about 1000 rounds of ammunition. This would be a realistic minimum standard of gun ownership for being properly armed and equipped to be a member of the Militia in the world today.

This is a free country and such mandatory firearms ownership can infringe the practice of personal freedom and liberty. This tension between the need for a strong militia to defend the nation and the desire of certain religious minorities to be free of military service for reasons of conscience existed in the US during the Revolutionary War. One infamous case of clever compromise on this issue was the use of monies from the pacifist Quakers of Pennsylvania to purchase grain for the revolution. Gunpowder was produced in ‘grains’ of various sizes and thus the money was spent to purchase gunpowder contrary to the intent of the Quakers. In this context the wording of the 2^nd Amendment makes a great deal of sense.

Instead of a law requiring all Citizens to own guns and to muster once a year to demonstrate that they were prepared with a military weapon to discharge their duties as members of the Militia, their right to own guns was guaranteed. It is better to allow each Citizen to make up his own mind and own guns or not according to his own choice. It is certainly wrong to deny this right to Citizens on the basis of hysterical fear and panic on the part of persons completely ignorant of what they are discussing.

Summary

On the issue of the RKBA it is useful to summarize the evidence. In the first place what is the traditional role of the RKBA in the body of political philosophy and experiential wisdom on which the American system is built? Clearly it is one of the badges of full Citizenship. According to the traditions on which America is founded no person is a fully enfranchised Citizen unless they have the RKBA.

There is the question of the behavioral conditioning effect of gun control laws vs. gun ownership on the Citizens as a whole. Gun Control laws deny the Citizens the right to take meaningful action to defend themselves and make them more helpless and dependent on the State. Gun ownership encourages personal responsibility and self-reliance and increases the sense of individual liberty and self-reliance of the Citizens. Gun Control attacks the psychology of freedom and gun ownership strengthens it. On this basis under the penumbra developed in the discussion of the 3^rd Amendment, Gun Control is unConstitutional.

What is the formal Constitutional Law status of the RKBA? Is the individual ownership of firearms really a Constitutional Right? Again there is no reasonable question on this issue. Any realistic understanding of the history of the firearms laws in England and the US at the time of the Revolution the comments on the RKBA in the Federalist Papers, etc. leave no doubt that it was an individual right at the time of the Framing of the Bill of Rights.

This is further amplified by the 14^th Amendment. The RKBA is the one right most clearly intended to be guaranteed as an individual personal right which the States could not interfere with by the discussions of the Framers at the time of the passage of the 14^th Amendment. If there is any right in the Bill of Rights clearly guaranteed as an individual personal right which local State and Municipal governments cannot interfere with due to the passage of the 14^th Amendment, it is the RKBA.

Finally there is the fact based issue of current science with regard to the RKBA. There is no scientific evidence that gun control laws reduce crime. In the absence of any benefit to laws which tend to condition Citizens to behave and think more like Subjects, such laws should be most strongly proscribed. They are in themselves unConstitutional. The risk to benefit relationship of gun ownership as a protection violence against the persons of Citizens is about the same as the risk to benefit relationship of vaccination as a protection against disease. On this basis, the RKBA should be absolutely guaranteed, and medical and disease control professionals should be among its strongest advocates.

On the basis of the evidence no sane or rational person could be opposed to the RKBA. Still mandatory ownership of guns should be opposed because it also militates against the since of freedom and personal empowerment of the Citizens.