Gun Control is Marketed as Something for Nothing

The vast majority of those who support more infringements on the Second Amendment do so from ignorance.    Those who actively push for a disarmed public are offering people who do not own guns a variation on the theme of something for nothing.   It goes like this:  Let us take something from *them* (people who value the second amendment) and we will make *you* safer.   The best part of this deal: it costs you *nothing*!   It is another form of spending other peoples money.

I remember an old joke to this effect from the Vietnam war.   It said the definition of a communist was "someone  who had nothing, and wanted to share it with you".

This is why those who want a disarmed population push so hard to convince people that you do not "need" this firearm or that firearm or this magazine or those bullets, and that firearms are useless for defense against anything or anyone, but absolutely effective killing machines against innocents.

The way to counter this stratagem is by education.   Once people see how useful weapons have been to others, they understand that they might be useful to them, even if it is sometime in the future. 

They can learn that weapons have been highly valued throughout history, and that those without weapons are very often the victims of those who have them, especially victims of government forces.  They can learn that weapons are primarily used for deterrence rather than for killing.

Concrete examples of defensive gun uses go a long way toward fostering that understanding.    At Gun Watch we have been doing our part in spreading the stories of defense of self and others that the old media routinely spike.

The greatest threat to peoples lives over the last hundred years has not been arms in the hands of private persons, but arms in the hands of state actors. The worst offenders have been those that call themselves socialists of one kind or another, such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Here is a university site in Hawaii that tracks such information:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

The information there offers powerful evidence of the necessity of limiting State power.   Virtually all victims of democide were first disarmed by the State before they were killed.

JPFO has a chart of the correlations of these killings and gun control.  It can be seen at the link.

Link to The Genocide Chart

The other side of the equation is worth noting.  People who do not wish to be armed can understand that disarming those who are already armed will not be free, and it is likely to cost more than mere money.

If they read the comments section of articles pushing for more infringements on the second amendment, if they talk to the co-worker who values his rights, if they see armed marchers risk being arrested to stand up for their rights as free people, it shows them that disarming those people comes with a cost.   That is directly opposite of the message that those who wish for a disarmed public are pushing.  There are far fewer takers for things that cost something compared to things that are claimed to be free.

In a recent New York Times blog, the writer, to his credit, understood that the open carry of firearms was protected political speech.   He simply misunderstood the message.   He wrote this:

The commitment to civil disagreement is merely provisional: I feel so strongly about this issue, the gun says, that if I don’t get my way, I am willing to kill for it.

He is partly correct, but he ignores the context.  The underlying context is: I will use force to protect rights that may not be legitimately taken.  It is the simple statement that government power is, and must be, limited.

It is people who believe that they can win without significant cost (or at least with a net benefit) to themselves who start  wars.   Only a very small segment of American society is willing to pay the costs of disarming their neighbors.   Only a very small segment sees any benefit to that action, when educated. 

The education is working.   After each attempt at incremental disarmament over the last  50 years, the numbers of those opposing more infringements have increased.   Before the recent propaganda push, the number was 54% ("kept  as now" plus "less strict".  The chart below only goes as far as 2013.

The numbers for January, 2014 have been published for a similar, though slightly different, question. I believe it signals what we will see in the "sale of firearms" question in six months:

 That gives a total of "kept the same" of 48%, "less strict" of 16%.   "kept the same" and "less strict" show a total of 64%, similar to what they were before the recent push.   "More strict" is only 31% after recovering from the Obama and old media push after Newtown.   "More strict" could easily fall to the 25% number of January 2012, or lower.

People are becoming educated.   When they do, they come down on the side of the right to bear arms.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch