News

Just going to post some of my copypasta I wrote that unfortunately remains timeless:

Lethal Effectiveness

To those saying "it's not the guns, it's the people!" There is a reason why shortly after the Las Vegas shooter committed one of the worst mass-shootings ever, bump-stocks became illegal. There's a reason there is increased REGULATION on fully-automatic firearms. Just look up how much damage a deranged guy in a tank that wasn't armed wreaked on San Diego.

Go either direction and see the result:

• If you permit folks more power, such as easy access Abrams battle-tanks complete with depleted-uranium ammunition and various other armaments; if you permit them to have nukes, Apache helicopters, etc... You can see just how much more damage a deranged individual can inflict within the same time-frame. (But hint: these are more highly regulated or completely off-limits in the first place, and the price itself imposes an effective barrier on who can attain such weapons of war... More on this concept later).

• If you LIMIT the average lethal-effectiveness the average Joe can attain to something less-than a firearm, you see the opposite trend. Less capacity to inflict mass-casualty harm in a limited time-frame. And let me be clear: I don't think too many people would opt to fight Fist vs Firearm in a surprise attack than Fist vs. Knife. We need only look to the UK to see the net-homicide rates do not carry over to stabbings.

So, sure, the person is who pulls the trigger. But what's important is how much power you're willing to put into the hands of the average deranged individual who will always have the element of surprise.

Squirt-gun scenario

Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.

Let's pretend we're in a game and all armed with squirt-guns (the utopian wild west, according to righties) and I just so happen to be playing the "bad guy with a squirt-gun." At any given moment, it's my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe...Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I'd fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it's a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market. Which is also why the Wild West was not safer and Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun-control measures in later years.

• Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn't matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude more. Always a losing race. I mean if I'm being mugged with or without my family, I'm just going to give them my stuff. It's meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I'd love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.

If I am a mass-squirter (don't.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)

• Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
• Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
• There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
• Statistically, you and your family are more likely to survive a violent encounter by (a) fleeing, (b) hiding, (c) cooperating, and/or (d) calling law-enforcement (suddenly these Blue Lives Matter folks scatter and they Hatteeeee cops when you raise this point; funny how that is).

By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you're addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.

Supply-And-Demand

A pretty basic concept is that when supply is reduced, the cost of a product rises. The moment firearm manufacturers must cease churning out new firearms and ammunition; the mere moment (independent of gun-buyback programs, etc.) firearms would become illegal in a hypothetical... The black-market price of said firearms soars out of reach of the vast-majority of people, including the vast-majority of criminals (which overlaps with poverty and crimes made out of desperation).

If a car salesperson's job is to make it easier to impulsively buy a car, regulations serve as hoops and friction to inhibiting such an impulse-purchase. Perhaps then a teenager like the Sandy Hook shooter wouldn't just steal his mom's gun where he then probably could not navigate the black market without being caught up in a sting operation. Perhaps that's why the Uvalde shooter himself waited until he could legally purchase a firearm. Just a thought.

Conversely from the criminal side of things, sure there will be a black-market for firearms as they are everywhere. But when a Glock 18 costs $15,000 cash on the black market, these criminals are either good at doing business or not going to rob or mug you for petty cash.

Finally, if printing guns was so effective, then why aren't gun subs littered with them? Why haven't they been used in any mass shootings? They're ostensibly cheaper no less, riiighttt...?

Those questions were rhetorical. The answer: They're inferior in pretty much every way. Anyone remotely trained in engineering knows the quality of printing at a consumer level will never meet commercial or industrial tolerances and be REMOTELY affordable. Leaving aside the fact that raw materials needed to build such things are of course going to be monitored. Leaving aside the fact that one cannot print plastic ammunition with any level of reliability. I'd also love to see the likes of Lanza make his own brass, gunpowder, and gun and (a) not have anyone notice and tip off police, and (b) not have it blow up in his face.

Root Causes vs. Symptoms

Many defending guns will deflect attention from firearms to society and root-problems elsewhere. I will grant that it is not JUST the firearm; there is more to the story and the firearm is just a simple means of slowing a symptom down, not the root cause. But just like any ER doctor must treat the symptoms alongside the root causes, so too must society. Thing is, addressing the symptoms tends to be easier than addressing the root causes. And it strikes me as funny that we go, ""Well okay if you don't want to focus on the guns let's give healthcare to all, widen education, reduce stress in society!"" and they protest that as well...

...

So WHY don't these pro-gun advocates care in the wake of facts as solid as proving climate-change itself? Well it's simple in that they kind of look at guns the way they look at climate change: they value their toy that makes them feel strong over society and don't care about the future. In short, despite draping themselves in the flag they are NOT patriots. They do NOT care about their fellow Americans one iota."