Gun Control

With the recent school shooting comes the same rhetoric from both sides. The left wants to impose gun control laws, the right sees this as encroachment upon their 2nd amendment right. The left spouts that it is common sense to impose gun regulation, but the right sees it as a slippery slope and a precedent for centralization of gun ownership in favor of the state. The reality is, is that it is a trade off and nothing more. Will we trade disarmament for implied safety? The argument easily boils down to that. The left doesn’t care about the 2nd amendment if it’s abolishment will potentially mean saving lives. The right cares about the 2nd amendment and the underlying principles that it stands for, that is to be able to defend itself through armament against the possibly tyrannical state and will allow the potentiality for tragedy to occur through the use of those arms. Let us break down these two sides before you get ahead of yourself.


I will strictly be calling those in favor of outright banning or further restricting guns to be the left and those who stand by the 2nd amendment and believe in their right to arm themselves as the right, but we all know that that labeling dichotomy can be very misleading – regardless, it is easiest to label the sides this way.

SO, with the left: Whenever a loss-of-life situation happens on the level of tragedy that a school shooting entails and a gun is involved, the left will yell for stricter gun control laws, or even the outright banning of guns and abolishment of the 2nd amendment. They immediately repeat that it is common sense in the 21st century for gun restriction or abolishment. Then they anoint themselves as the harbingers of empathy because they want to get rid of guns and stop possible future tragedy. They paint their side as a sort of angelic aristocracy that is simply in favor of peace and safety. They then go on to label anyone who opposes their view as moronic, low-intelligence, and even sub-human because that side “doesn’t want to save kids”. “How can you support guns after a tragedy like this!”. It’s so simple right? They begin to use other first world countries as exemplar for the kind of gun control that will stop future tragedy from occurring. That is the left.

SO, with the right: Whenever a loss-of-life situation happens on the level of tragedy that school shooting entails, the right will yell for a change in culture and reinforce the importance of the 2nd amendment and how our forefathers sealed our fate as citizens to be in control of our state. Usually, simply naming the 2nd amendment is enough of an argument for the less knowledgeable of the bunch, but that is not enough when faced with such backlash by the left. They won’t label the left as a demonic subsidiary of the state, but they will go out and call them peons because of their implied reliance on the state to impose control. That is the right.

So, let’s think about this a bit. What is the underlying debate here, what does it boil down to? Trade offs. It is simply an argument about trade offs. Does the left see it as a trade off – not really, they see it as taking the morally righteous stance. Does the right see it as a trade off – yes, they see it more so through a tragic lens, where the tragedy is a horrible occurrence but the principles must stand regardless of the event, i.e. a trade off.

Let’s break this apart further.

Will banning guns stop the underlying cause of people killing other people. The answer is no, obviously. Will banning guns stop the amount of gun-related-homicide. Most likely, but if there was no high rate in the first place then there won’t be a huge decline and if there was a general decline already happening then again it will be hard to make that correlation between strict gun control and decline. Putting up a fence around something won’t entirely stop people from breaking in, but it will stop the majority of those who would break in if there was no fence, and if there were no break ins in the first place, the fence will change nothing. It is simply a deterrent.  But, will banning guns stop the amount of homicide? Entirely debatable. According to Australian Crime Statistics here:

They show that from, 1980  through 2014, the gun-related-homicide rate had been on a decline. In 1996, after a massacre, semi-automatic guns and shotguns were outlawed by the Australian government, which supposedly triggered that decline – BUT, as you can see in the statistics, all other homicide(beating and other) have also been on a decline EXCEPT for knife-related-homicide which has stayed relatively the same. We can make an observation, that as the 1st world advances year by year with general attitudes, medical care, technology etc. there should be an expected relative decline in all crime including homicide. That said, the knife-related-homicide hasn’t changed for the most part, but why is that – maybe they should ban knives?

If the US were to ban guns tomorrow, gun related crime would likely decrease over time, but would that be because of a general decline in crime or exclusively because of the ban?

It is important to repeat that at this point, what we are arguing is “Will I give up my 2nd amendment right for the potential increase in safety for school children”. We are not arguing morality and not arguing whether a restriction is common sense, we are arguing trade offs. Will we trade defense against a malicious actor or tyrannical government for an implied increase in safety at schools, an implied safety that is theorized using statistics that don’t necessarily prove a correlation but are cited as if they did. A determined psychotic actor could use all sorts of tools to enact his carnage, think recent terrorist attacks in the U.K. where guns are outlawed, so why only focus on the guns – well that’s because the reaction itself is situationally reactionary; kids got shot in a school by a gun so that’s what they will focus on.

The left doesn’t understand that if the citizens are completely disarmed there is no deterrent towards a governing body to become tyrannical in the first place; no formidable opposition after the fact either.

Here is a quote I found that perfectly embodies the “armed citizens are necessary to keep the government in check” philosophy:

“You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners and enforce “no assembly” edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening, and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D. C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.

BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner has an AR-15, all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks, and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.”

Armed citizens cannot be tyrannically policed. They can be decimated, outright destroyed, but never can they be controlled in terms of a police state. The United States can bomb countries all they want, but if their goal is take control of a country, they either must do it through talking or through disarming, not through destruction.

You now may ask “why then doesn’t the U.K. or Australia become the very tyrannical government you speak of since they’re guns are heavily restricted.” And I will answer it with this: The United States exists. That is all I have to say. The very simple-simple answer.

So where do we go next? We have discussed the core of the debate, we have shown why each side wants what it wants, so next we have to venture forth into the cultural aspect of things, because culture is a driving force behind society, and if strict gun control is not an all determining factor behind less crime rate, then there must be something intrinsically deeper within the framework of society that causes such different crime rate across the board of countries. All over the globe we can observe the real-time effect that different culture has on human beings. Country by country, it’s peoples live different lives and naturally there are vastly different outcomes. No where in the history of human civilization do you find people evenly represented, and that is because the underlying culture and its influence is different from person to person.

There are countless factors as to why some cultures are more advanced than others. It could mean that one was more adaptive to outside influence, or that the lesser culture was completely isolated from others and that forced it to remain highly technologically inept because it did not share in knowledge with the outside world. Western culture seems to have become dominant in terms of humanitarian effort, but why is that? – Is it because we are forced to by some omnipresent being that happens to dictate the path our culture takes? Is it because the governing body enforced laws that forced people to care about their not so lucky neighbors? Let’s just say that we have simply surpassed our need for most cultural doctrine that made life in the past feasible, in terms of self-sustenance and war on immediate resources, and we have gotten to a point where we are so comfortable in our position that we can afford to attempt to take care of others.

The real-life examples are all there. Cultures are different. Some better than others and that is simply the truth, be it politically incorrect. I can give loads of statistics here but the one I will focus on is close to home. Asian Americans out perform every other demographic in terms of academic achievement and that is not because there is a law forcing them to do better. It is because of a different approach to academics, culturally, that they are succeeding at a higher rate. There are laws however that favor other demographics like affirmative action. And then there is the notion of White Privilege that supposedly presides over the American system. Why then do African Americans and White Americans fall below Asians in academic success? The answer is simple. The dominating culture, passed down the family tree, coming over the pacific and into the United States, where it envelops the homes of the Asian population, is the reason for their success. Their culture propagates effort to the top of the list. The more effort the better the outcome – a very simple idea and yet it has such incredible results. Asian Americans simply work harder than others and as a result succeed more than others. This is not a result of banning something or changing a policy to dictate the outcome of a competitive process – this is one culture besting others in a free-market styled educational system.

Now that I have set the stage with the focus on culture being an incredible influence, we must talk about Canada. Canada has almost identical gun control laws yet it’s homicide by gun per capita is drastically lower than the US. There are of course differences, but many of the guns used in massacres are just as obtainable in Canada as they are in the United States. In Canada, what is required beyond the background check, is a PAL application form, and a written and practical exam which is based off a safety course. This is easily passable, not a deterrent unless the individual is literally clueless. The PAL form can easily be lied on like any other form. The background check is just like it is in the United States. Any serious mental issues and you cannot obtain a gun. If you want a handgun or restricted rifle such as the AR15, you just have to take a second class called the CRFSC which is another safety course on restricted weapons. The difference between Canadian and American gun law is that in Canada you have to fill out a more comprehensive initial application and then take a safety course. That is literally it.

Here is an important link that shows the likelihood of United States shootings happening in Canada : Notice that all but one shooting have a chance of happening in Canada, and they are not 100% possible, because of the PAL form according to the author. PAL is an application that can be forged just as any other form, so this is hardly a formidable defense, and hardly a deviation from the United States in terms of gun laws. I would change all those scores to “Possibly” instead of “unlikely”.

Now that we know that the access to weapons is similar in both countries, let’s look at Canadian vs American statistics. According to

Canadian fire-arm-related-homicide rate is seven times lower than the United States. That is, 0.5 cases per 100,000 people. The US being 3.5 cases per 100,000. You can look over all the statistics that show Canada has a much lower crime rate involving guns, as well as a much smaller list of school massacres, yet it’s gun laws are almost similar to that of the United States. So, what does this all mean? With the ease of acquiring guns in Canada, surely the per capita rate of gun-related-homicide or shooting massacre should be much higher? Guns are the reason for all the death and carnage in the United States, right? Wrong. Gun control does not solely dictate the gun-related-death per capita. The demographics, the overall culture, the medical care in terms of mental illness, the communal values that are reinforced, etc. etc. are all factors that come into play. This is the important part that the left seems to be missing in their arguments. I have been told that attempting to quantify the intangible is a useless effort, but culture is quite quantifiable and therefore can be considered tangible.

Here is a quote from Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell. It perfectly illustrates the misrepresentation of repeated statistics as the final verdict on whether or not something is true –  in this case, that stricter gun control laws  = less murder. But the reality is that there are a multitude of factors that come in to play that describe the reasons for murder rate in a country, not just gun control.  I am not sure exactly where it is in the book, but it is around 263 minutes in – Chapter 8 of the audiobook. ( I will update with the exact page later) Here is the link to buy it:

Here is a link to the quote via google:


“             Only when numbers are in accord with a prevailing vision are they likely to be accepted uncritically, without considering other statistics that tell a very different story. For example, much of what is said about the effect of gun control on crime rates in general, or on the murder rate in particular, is based on what kinds of statistics are repeated endlessly and what kinds of data seldom, if ever, reach the general public.

It has, for example, been repeated endlessly in the media and in academia that Britain and various other countries with stronger gun control laws than those in the United States have murder rates that are only a fraction of the murder rate in the United States – the clear implication being that it is the gun control which accounts for the differences in murder rates. Having reached this conclusion, most of the intelligentsia have seen no reason to proceed further. But a serious attempt to test the hypothesis of an inverse relationship between restricted gun ownership and the murder rate would make other comparisons and other breakdowns of statistical data necessary. For example:

1.Since we know that murder rates are lower in some countries with stronger gun control laws than in the United States, are there other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States that have higher murder rates?

2.Are there countries with widespread gun ownership which have lower murder rates than some other countries with lower gun ownership rates?

3.Did the murder rate differential between the United States and Britain originate with the onset of gun control laws?…

Russia and Brazil have tougher gun control laws than the United States and much higher murder rates.

Gun ownership in Mexico are a fraction of what they are in the United States, but Mexico’s murder rate is more than double that in the United States. Handguns are banned in Luxembourg but not in Belgium, France or Germany; yet the murder rate in Luxembourg is several times the murder rate in Belgium, France or Germany.” – Thomas Sowell (Intellectuals and Society)

It seems, that the answers we seek are not as easy as claiming one repeated statistic as infallible truth. You can claim a single statistic is all the proof you need but you cannot claim your argument is infallible because of that single statistic. Your hypothesis should be tested, all factors taken in to accord, the statistic itself expanded to other scenarios. Sure, the statistic might imply a certain truth, but can that implied truth be replicated elsewhere, is there anything else, any other factor, to that statistic that might morph the reality that the implied truth is representing. All the information is there, why then does the left continue to repeat the same statistics without expanding on them – because they simply don’t have to.

But if you want to continue using the U.K. as the holy grail of examples for why gun control stops crime, then we must talk about the wave of acid attacks that have granted the U.K. the title of Acid Attack Capital of the World. On record in 2017

In the first six months of 2017, there were 400 recorded acid attacks. That is two every single day. Acid attacks are a barbaric, if there was a ranking, form of violence as the intention is not to kill victim, but to maim and disfigure them for the rest of their lives. What ends up usually happening is the acid hit’s the face of the victim as it is the most exposed – think about how hard it is so hide your face. This is a life-long detriment. With this in mind, we can make an assumption, that maybe – just maybe that banning on guns lead to criminals finding another way to enact terror onto their victims through the use of acid. I couldn’t find statistics to disprove or make the correlation, but we can always hypothesize.

Lastly, we can take a look at gun statistics in the United States and see what hypotheses we can gather from them, in which case we can then further support the claim that changing culture should be the next step.

You don’t have to read the article even though you should, but the graph used is using statistics provided by the NYPD for crime in 2014. Basically, Blacks make up about 60% of the victims, suspects, and arrestees in terms of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter.  Hispanics make up about 30% of those. Whites just about 10%. Yet, Whites make up about 30% of the population, Blacks 23%, and Hispanics 30%.

23% of the population is responsible for 60% of the Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter – Why is that?.

There are plenty of statistics out there even on the National level that show a similar disparity between ethnicities. The point is obvious though, there is something culturally different between these three races – something that possibly stems from ancestry, or a byproduct of other factors and now it seems to contain itself within that population in a generational loop. Maybe gangs are the reason. Gang culture has poisoned Hispanic and Black populations because of the inherent violence within that culture. Why aren’t the left talking about that when it comes to gun crime? Everyone knows gangs = guns. Can’t that be considered a form of gun control? Want to stop gun-related crime? – Start with dissolving toxic cultures. The left are so fast to yell for gun control when a school shooting happens, and that is unquestionably emotionally reactive rhetoric, but when there are 15 shootings over one weekend in Chicago, all by the hands of black criminals firing at black victims, there is no emotional connection and therefore not of worth mentioning. Maybe it is too hard to solve for them, so they completely avoid the issue.

To summarize a few points: Banning guns does not automatically equal drop in crime in terms of homicides, robberies, etc. Do guns stop crime from happening? Banning guns may show gun-related-crime drop by the numbers but was the decline already happening before that? Was there much gun-related-crime in the first place? Maybe a general decline in all crime is the reason for the decline in gun-related-crime, not the restrictions. Did restrictions on guns in certain countries lead to an increase in other violent crime? What demographics are disproportionately represented in gun-related-crime and why? Do gun bans stop gun-related-massacres from happening?

In the end, the left wants to restrict the right to arm under the 2nd amendment which will not be a solution to those who believe in the principle of that amendment. They will paint the right as immoral and use that as a basis to why they don’t even need to debate the subject; poisoning the well so-to-speak. But, I personally believe that the majority is pro-gun, so even the thought of repealing the 2nd amendment is ludicrous from the beginning. That belief is without the backing of statistics or polls, since as we know, all the polls running up to the election last year were completely wrong in regards to who was going to win the election – SO I may be right or wrong. Regardless, there is a decently sized armed citizenry that will instantly reject any notion to disarm themselves completely and that is enough, I presume, to fight against any action to repeal the 2nd amendment. That is why it isn’t so cut and dry and the issue is heavily debated.

So, the next logical step is to figure out how we can begin to cleanse the culture that spews out gun-related-crime and crime in general. Will the left leap to that next step or will they stick, gorilla glue and all, to there attempts to ban guns and rid of the 2nd amendment? Time will tell, but maybe it is up to the right to introduce these concepts into the public discourse, to make an effort to expose and help to heal the toxicity that runs in the veins of our cultural framework. Our forefathers enlisted within us the duty to keep our government in check and to uphold the freedoms that make our society one of the greatest, but in this 21st century, and unbeknownst to those forefathers, we now also have the duty to help our fellow citizen in reaching a lifestyle that is absent of violence so that all of us can live in peaceful harmony with each other.


Some Videos:

This video is NRA funded I believe so obvious bias but don’t disregard it immediately because the points presented are important and they reinforce everything that I have said thus far.


This video strictly lays out statistics on homicides and guns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *