Disproving three popular excuses for gun control.

     Those who wish to institute what is popularily known as 'gun control', or a 'gun ban' (a more accurate term would be 'gun monopoly') into our society generally offer one or more of the following three excuses for their actions. As I shall show, none of these excuses are valid. Their real motivation is a desire to enslave the human mind.

1. We have to have more gun control laws to keep them out of the hands of criminals!

    This is absurd. No-one loves gun control laws MORE than a criminal. Since it is impossible to keep someone from obtaining a gun who is absolutely, 100 percent determined to do so, all this accomplishes is to guarantee a criminal a large flock of helpless sheep to prey upon.
     Furthermore, a criminal is someone who is morally impaired. The term impaired implies that they are a rare exception to a general rule. It therefore follows that criminals are only a very small percentage of all the individuals in a population. It is absurd to speak of a 'society of criminals'. Such a phrase is a contradiction of terms. A large group of criminals would be a gang, not a society, it's 'laws' would be based upon the whims of those individuals who had grabbed the most power for themselves rather than upon rational moral principles, and would therefore be basically meaningless.
     Since criminals are a small minority of all individuals, it is absurd to use the behavior of these few aberrations as a justification for the violation of the intrinsic rights of EVERYBODY. By that standard, if a man were a murderer, you would put not only him, but the nearest 100 of his neighbors in jail. We do not do this, because the moral standing of one person is not dependent upon the actions of another person. Just asthe actions of a criminal do not justify punishing innocent people, neither do they justify the reduction or elimination of their rights.


2. We have to have gun control to protect the children.


     This is just as silly as the first excuse. Just as the defining characteristic of a criminal behavior is that it is ABERRENT, the defining characteristic of childhood is that it is TEMPORARY. All people were children at one time. Eventually, all people become adults. I truly wonder how many children, if they were capable of understanding the issues involved, would accept this Faustian bargain, and desire to obtain temporary special 'protection' in exchange for their permanent helplessness and loss of rights.

     Furthermore, gun control will not 'protect the children'. The only threat to a child from a gun lies in either a criminal using it against him, or in accidentally injuring himself with one because he is too immature to respect a firearm properly. I dealt with the subject of criminals in part one. As for the child accidentally shooting himself, that is regretable. I really do think that if an adult has a child in the house who is too young to handle a gun safely, they ought to keep their guns locked up. However the stubborness or foolishness of those who do not, is not an excuse to curtail the rights of those who do. There are all sorts of things in the world which are potentially hazardous to children. Keys and paperclips for instance, can be stuck into electrical sockets and electrocute any child who does such a thing. There is really no way to protect children, or anyone else completely without turning them into a slave.

3. We have to sacrifice some of our rights and freedoms for the good of society.

    I have noticed that whenever someone uses this phrase, it is never the rights and freedoms which they personally value which they wish to sacrifice, but always those which are valued by others. Furthermore, they do not explain (because they cannot explain) exactly how it could be that 250 million individuals who have been reduced to a state of terror, misery, and enslavement as a result of the loss of their freedoms, when put together, somehow compose a happy society. Am I missing something here? Or is what the gun-grabbers really mean is that they want some individuals to give up their rights and freedoms in order to ensure the perverted satisfaction of other individuals. But I guess that doesn't sound quite so noble, even if it is more accurate.