"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams

Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left.
Instead, we will look to the Intellectuals and Champions of Liberty, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to be a truly free people. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Free Individual and the State.
Please join us!

Saturday, April 7, 2018

Can We Have A Civil Discussion About Gun Control? Absolutely Not!

By: Michael Anderson for Patriot's Lament


With the new calls for gun control and gun bans and gun seizures, we should ask: Is there a civil discourse that can be had over gun control? Let's answer that question here. Those who follow along without much thought of causation, erroneously believe that reducing or eliminating gun ownership will reduce violence in a society. Of course, this is disproved everywhere it is tried, including Australia. In Australia, they experienced a peak right after their gun ban and then a drop back to pre-ban levels, with a rise in homicide rates in 2017, both by gun and knife attacks. Third world populations who have been disarmed end up being genocided, such as China, Russia, Ukraine, Cambodia and Armenia. In the third world, confiscation prevents them from saving themselves or fighting back, while farmland and existing industry is stolen. 


In first world countries, such as the US, Australia, England and the rest of Europe, disarmament gives them a false sense of security and a greater willingness to call upon their masters for greater "protection", while unquestioningly paying higher and higher taxes for nothing. They are trained to acquiesce and accept their master's conditions and definition of freedom. In the first world, resources are devoted to propaganda to convince the population to disarm itself, because as low as their homicide rate might be, it could be even lower, if they just disarmed themselves. This conclusion is baseless, since there actually is no correlation between murder rates and gun ownership. As shown in the chart, below.


This can be summarized by stating that in third world countries, where economies are poor or undeveloped, power must be expressed through raw killing and theft, while, in first world countries, power is expressed by manipulative expropriation of the subject's productive capacity. In the first world country, it makes more sense to keep them alive and producing, while fooling them into thinking they are free, rather than killing off half their family and forcing them to operate purely out of debilitating fear, which would cause an economic catastrophe and destroy the tax base. It's more profitable to steal their minds, than their bodies.


Gun Ownership Rates compared to Homicide Rates [McKaken, 2015]




Clearly murder rates have nothing to do with gun ownership, as we are led to believe by first world propaganda efforts. In fact, the correlation for gun ownership rates vs. homicide rates is less that 0.1 (no correlation). As a side note, it turns out that population density does not correlate with murder rates, either. One last point to be made is that although some like to make claims about high rates of gun deaths in the US, 63% of those cases are suicides. 


With all of that in mind, the argument is not even really about guns. It is about individuals being able to posses a weapon of any kind. While tyrants and the mentally handicapped in America call for the banning of guns, their counterparts in England are actually calling for a ban on kitchen knives. Their brain dead chant goes like this: "Save lives, surrender your knives". In fact it is illegal to defend one's self, at all, in London. In France, three soldiers are now being prosecuted for chasing down a purse thief, beating the hell out of him and returning the stolen purse to the owner. In another example, from the 19th century Japan, Martial Arts were discouraged and outlawed in 1871 when power was restored to the emperor and the importance of the individual gave way to the power of the state. In fact, the only reason we still have the art of Jujitsu, is because of a few brave Japanese who continued to practice and teach it in underground schools. The Americans also banned martial arts in japan, during the occupation. In every situation, governments engage in weapons bans for the purpose of subjugating the population. There is no exception. They are either turned into cowards who have lost the will and ability to defend themselves, or they are just turned into dead bodies. Any government that attempts to ban or seize your weapon is telling you that you are disposable trash as far as it is concerned.


A common theme among gun control advocates is the line "you don't need that type of gun to defend yourself". Such a statement embodies exactly what they are. Before any dictator publicly decided on what food or what farm or what business or what belief system a subject didn't need, they always decided upon what weapon they they didn't need, first. In fact a good definition of a tyrant is "Any entity that takes it upon himself/herself/itself to decide what others do not need and enforces that opinion". Any person who attempts to base an argument on their decision of what you don't need has already lost the argument and can be placed in the same intellectual category as Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot.


In studies of battles from WWII, it was discovered that firing rates of soldiers dropped 80% when a commander was not present It was only when a commanding officer was present, threatening them if they did not kill their assigned enemy, that they would carry out the bidding of the state and kill. It turns out that the human psyche is very much averse to killing or even harming others, with the exception of a small minority with strong sociopathic tendencies. But the great fallacy of the human condition is its unfortunate habit of obedience to "authority", which always presents itself in fancier and fancier dress, depending on the level of "authority". The fancy dress, and shiny things  hanging from it bypass rational thought, while also appealing to a person's primitive sense of fear (the reptilian brain, or R-complex). The truth is, most people have no desire to harm anyone else, even for personal gain, despite what the state tries to convince you of. The few who do, don't care what laws there are and will seek out whatever weapon they can to carry out the act, whether it's a gun, knife, club, hammer, rock, acid, etc. The real limiting factor to those few psychopaths who would carry out such an act is fear of death, by the person they choose to attack. This is all redundant and  should be quite obvious.


So, let's look into the issue a bit deeper. What is a gun? To those who do care about others- those who are not  sociopaths, it is simply a means of repelling an attack. At most, only about 4% of the population is sociopathic, and of those, only about a quarter of them (1% of society) reach the levels of psychopath and many of those are or have been in prison. We do not need to worry about the normal people. In a society that had no state and thus, no gun control, the normal people would outnumber the potential killers by 24 times, in a worst case scenario. The psychos would be weeded out pretty quickly if they didn't watch themselves. Unfortunately we have a system that claims to protect us, by housing, feeding and protecting the sociopaths, while allowing them to interact and influence the normal people who have been jailed, often for political crimes, like marijuana possession.


So, now let's get down to the question we originally asked. I cannot imagine that anyone would actually believe that protecting one's self or family is not the most sacred of responsibilities or "rights". Is it wrong to fight back against a rapist? What feminist would argue that? Is it wrong to fight off a kidnapper? How about a killer? The right to defend one's self is as sacred as one's own body is. It must be, because if defense of one's own mind, body or property is not important, than one's mind, body or property is not important, either. I include "mind" in this list, because the mind is severely affected by criminal acts such as robbery or rape. It leaves the victim feeling vulnerable, fearful and devoid of value. 


Anyone who claims that you should not have a gun and, especially, anyone who advocates "seizure" of your weapon of choice, is also stating that your right to self defense shall be dictated by them and therefore, the sanctity, value and ownership of yourself, shall be dictated by them. By interfering with your ability to defend yourself, they commit an aggressive act against you, which leaves you in a defenseless state against someone who would further harm you. Their act of attempting to remove your chosen ability to defend yourself from the few natural predators in society, classes them as the protector of the predator, and thus, a predator, themselves. 


Of all the inanimate possessions that you have in your home, your weapon is the most important, because it is your means of defending your most important possession of all- yourself. A gun control advocate is, therefore, no better than a rapist or a thief, and, in fact, is his friend and comrade. Any person, be it a politician, a sheriff, an activist or some dumb-ass down the street, who advocates your disarmament, in any way, is no different than the rapist or murderer, as he/she has no regard for your chosen means of defense from the rapist or murderer. Therefore, it is quite imperative that they be outed as such. It is not something that should be a "civil" political discussion. If someone discussed raping your wife, would you have a civil discussion about it, or rip them apart and let them know that if they ever come to your property with their stated intent, that you will blow their brains out? Civil discussion has no place when such a threat of personal harm is being advocated. 


What is the appropriate response to actual gun control and attempted seizure of weapons. I think it is quite obvious. When the colonists at Lexington and Concord shot the British troops to stop them from taking their armory, they clearly understood that the means of defense is equally as important as that which is to be defended. The colonists did not want war. They spent decades putting up with abuses from their own government, refusing to fight them, because they were not foreign invaders to the colonists. The soldiers were their misguided English brothers from across the pond. But  the colonists knew that to take their defense was to take their bodies and their minds and they had to, finally, break that bond. None of this has changed. The only appropriate response to active seizure of your weapons is precisely the same as your response to someone trying to rape your wife.

No comments:

Post a Comment