The Gun Control Debate: Why Both Sides are Getting Hoodwinked

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifl/16103337050

Next to abortion, gun control vs. gun rights is the most hotly debated, politically charged topic in America, and I'm here to tell you that it's beyond irrelevant. In fact, it's downright stupid, to the point of being the intellectual equivalent of ducking and covering during a nuclear strike.

So now that I've pissed off Democrats and Republicans alike, bear with me...

Let's apply some critical thinking. The first question everyone should be asking is, Why is gun control vs. gun rights so important to so many people, to the point of outright religious fanaticism on both sides? The left believes that guns are a major threat to their very existence, while the right believes that guns are the only thing preserving their existence.

While they may argue for opposing solutions, the fact is that both sides of the debate are reacting to the same problem: The threat of gun violence.

The left believes they can stop gun violence simply by restricting guns. The right, however, believes that restricting guns has no effect on gun violence, and ultimately only has the effect of taking guns out of the hands of law abiding people, thereby preventing them from defending themselves. They believe the only solution to gun violence is putting more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. And despite being passionate about solving the same problem, these opposing philosophies quickly break down into ad hominems and strawman arguments.

But maybe we're missing the point. Maybe it simply just doesn't matter who's right, because, as counterintuitive as it sounds, maybe gun violence isn't a big problem in the first place. In other words, maybe it's just not even worth arguing about.

In truth, gun violence is a drop in the ocean in relation to the actual dangers we face in this country, meaning you are not likely to be impacted personally by the existence, or lack thereof, of guns. In other words, regardless of which way the political pendulum swings, it has an extremely low probability of affecting your personal wellbeing in any way.

In fact, if you're the victim of a gun, it's likely self inflicted, as the CDC reports that there are twice as many suicides than homicides involving guns. As tragic as that is, you are statistically two times more likely to intentionally take your own life with a firearm than you are to be murdered with one. In fact, choice of instrument not being taken into account, you are 2.5 times more likely to take your own life than you are to be the victim of a homicide. Logically then, the NRA and Brady Campaign should both forget about guns and pool their resources for suicide prevention. And for what it's worth, the number of guns a country has in circulation has no impact on suicide rates; people simply use whatever means are available to them at the moment of crisis.

So how about accidental gun deaths? The left argues that guns in a home are the equivalent of leaving a burning candle unattended in a fireworks factory, while the right claims that guns make a home safer. Well, statistically speaking, you are ten times more likely to die by accidental drowning than by negligent use of a firearm. And this needs some additional context, considering that there are likely 600 million guns in the US right now, whereas there are about 11 million total swimming pools in the entire country, both public and residential. While firearms safety and mandatory gun locks are certainly worthwhile pursuits, why is there not an even greater push for water safety and mandatory child gates for residential swimming pools?

Now let's look at some of the individual talking points of the gun control debate. After all, every topic has its wins and fails, so maybe there's a kernel of truth buried somewhere in all the minutiae.

• Assault weapons: Nothing gets both sides going quite like this one. The left sees them as slightly less dangerous than nuclear warheads, while the right claims that they exist only in the minds of Democrats. For the most part, the definition of an assault weapon is based on arbitrary and largely cosmetic features like bayonet lugs.

  And as it turns out, bayonets are equally useless both for homicides and self defense, which is why you have never seen a news story about anyone being attacked with a bayonet, or using one in self defense. Moreover, bayonet lugs are simply a mounting point, and bipod and other mounting points can be (and are) repurposed as bayonet lugs, and vice versa. Hell, in a pinch duct tape would do the trick.

The photo above is a prime example of something so wildly impractical that it's not even worth mentioning, but that doesn't stop politicians from making mountains out of such molehills. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nukeit1/4344625736

• High capacity magazines: For some reason, the line in the sand has been drawn at ten rounds. Democrats think that a magazine with more than ten rounds is a WMD, whereas Republicans think a magazine with less than ten rounds is the functional equivalent of being unarmed.

  In reality, the vast majority of firearms crime is committed with small handguns that have a capacity of less than ten rounds, being that criminals overwhelmingly prefer concealment over firepower. On the other side of the coin, most self defense shootings are carried out successfully with less than ten rounds. In fact, the standard US service pistol for the greater part of the last century was the 1911, which only holds seven, and is still an extremely popular handgun for civilians and law enforcement alike.

  Truthfully, most civilians opt for small pistols with low capacity magazines, even in states with no laws limiting magazine capacity. Again, concealment is universally preferred over firepower in polite society, and this axiom held true even back in the day when civilians could still carry firearms at will.

• Mass shootings: Going against all intuition, there is simply no correlation between the availability of firearms and the number or severity of mass shootings. The US is actually 12th for number of mass shootings and 11th for deaths per capita, whereas France is 11th and 3rd respectively. Macedonia, where only 5% of households have a gun, is number one for frequency, and Norway is number one for deaths per capita.

  Logically then, reducing the number of guns in circulation isn't going to have any impact on mass shootings. However, there is a very high correlation between mass shootings and mental health, with nearly all mass shooters having a long history of mental health problems. Like the case with suicides, the money and effort being dumped into the gun control debate would be much better spent on solving this nation's mental health crisis.

  We also need to look at mass shootings in the broader sense of mass killings in general, which don't necessarily require a gun. Vehicles have proven to be the most effective instrument of mass murder, but homemade explosives and knives are also popular. I cringe to think what the death toll would have been if the Vegas shooter had instead opted to drive into the crowd with a Mac truck.

  Regardless, though, you're about as likely to die in a mass shooting as you are to die from lightning, and, if you really want to find something to worry about, think of the nearly 40,000 people who die in car crashes each year in the US. Also consider that car crashes, unlike random acts of violence, are something we can do something about. The US has absurd rates of drunk and distracted driving, along with one of the weakest driver education programs of any developed country, combined with the youngest drivers anywhere in the first world. So why do mass shootings get so much attention from the media? Because they sell seats, damn it!

• Barrel length: Somewhere along the way, Congress decided that 16 inches was a safe barrel length for rifles, whereas 18 inches was safe for shotguns. This, combined with an overall 26 inch length requirement, was theorized to prevent criminals from being able to conceal weapons.

  Again, however, the overwhelming vast majority of criminals choose small, easily pocketed pistols. And civilians overwhelmingly choose long guns with longer barrels because Congress didn't account for the fact that short barrels dramatically reduce the effectiveness of long guns, both in terms of lethality and reliability.

  Likewise, our nation's military overwhelmingly chooses barrels 14.5 inches to 20 inches for their service rifles for the same reasons. Airborne and vehicle crews may opt for shorter barrels out of necessity, but they do so grudgingly. So, again, Congress has shown its uncanny ability to be as arbitrary as it is ineffective.

• Armor piercing bullets: This was a hot button issue going back to the 1980's especially, and it's another example of our politicians fabricating a nonexistent issue out of thin air. In truth, all bullets have the potential to be "armor piercing." It simply depends on the armor and bullet in question.

  For example, any common hunting caliber, even the small ones intended for varmints, can pierce any kevlar vest on the market. The legal definition of an armor piercing bullet has to do with its construction, not with its actual ability to pierce any given armor system. Additionally, as has already been stated, criminals typically choose small caliber pocket pistols, which simply do not have the potential to pierce common body armor, as they just don't have the energy required to do so, regardless of how they're constructed.

  Alternately, there are common handgun calibers on the market, with bullets of common construction, which can pierce common armor due to their high velocities, yet criminals rarely choose them. Even before armor piercing bullets were made illegal, criminals rarely used them either. Why? Because, as any cop can tell you, criminals typically use the cheapest ammunition they could find at Walmart. Which also puts to bed the hollow point debate...

• Common sense gun control: The major failure of the left has been to support their "common sense" claims with empirical evidence, leaving the right to wonder where the common sense is, and justifiably so. If appeals to "common sense" begin replacing the scientific method, then it's no wonder that the opposing side is going to drag its heels.

  Simply because you believe something doesn't make it true, much less common sense. In this way, common sense has come to mean common opinion, and that's no way to solve a problem. In this instance, the left has allowed gut reaction to replace logical analysis, and while gut reaction and intuition are important for the formation of hypotheses, they are too influenced by emotion to be considered proof of anything.

  And in many instances, common sense has proven to be dead wrong, such as the assumption that eating fat makes you fat, or that getting cold will give you a cold. Scientifically, these beliefs are absurd, yet that doesn't stop people from believing them.

• Confiscation and state violence: The right argues that common sense gun control measures are simply the camel's nose under the tent, and will eventually lead to outright confiscation, followed by a totalitarian state takeover. In other words, they think guns in the hands of private citizens are the only thing standing between them and going to the gulag.

  They have a point, in that state power grabs have historically been preceded by gun confiscation, as seen in the Bolshevik Revolution and Nazi Germany, as well as a handful of other examples. On the other hand, correlation doesn't equal causation, and there are many more examples of countries who confiscated guns and didn't put everyone in gulags, such as most of Europe, Australia, and most of Asia.

  By the same token, there aren't very many examples of a citizenry rising up against its abusers, and when they do it's usually far too late in the game to be of any use. The reality is that people are, as a society, weak, and even an armed citizenry has little hope of organizing a counteraction in time to save themselves from an organized state takeover. With all of that said, the right's unease is very understandable, as they have been the target of so much arbitrary regulation that they can be forgiven for being a little paranoid.

• Self defense: Again, as pointed out earlier, you are simply not very likely to ever be in a situation where you will need a gun. On the other hand, ordinary people do successfully defend themselves with legally owned firearms on a daily basis. In the context of guns being safer than swimming pools, perhaps they really do make a person safer, although how much safer probably can't be quantified, due to the spotty reporting of incidences and the fact that some people carry a much higher risk factor than others.

  For example, an elderly lady living in Compton has an exponentially higher chance of needing a gun than an upper middle class farmer living in rural middle America. All in all, the average American is probably about as likely to be saved by a gun as they are by a smoke detector. Despite the peace of mind they give, you are incredibly likely to go through life without one just fine.

So if literally none of it matters, from either perspective, then why is there so much hatred and vitriol being spewed back and forth?

Because the media and our politicians (on both sides, mind you) have hoodwinked us into believing that the gun control debate matters, not only to hold it over us as political capital, but also to distract us from the real issues, which mostly revolve around our own government robbing us blind.

In short, gun control is a completely fabricated debate with no basis in reality, and it's sole purpose is to help keep people in power who are looting this country for all it's worth. They have created this false dialectic-the tangible implications of which are no more important than team Edward vs. team Jacob or Packers vs. Steelers-to illicit an emotional response for the sole purpose of distracting the American people while they get away with murder. It's a political smoke screen and a false alarm, like reporting a high rise fire right before you rob the bank across town.

Still not convinced? Well, don't worry, because the status quo isn't ever going to change. If you're for gun control, you will continue to see token victories, especially if you live in liberal states, and you can continue to pretend that useless gun control measures, such as banning bayonet lugs, will make you safer.

And if you're on the gun rights bandwagon, you can also relax, because no one is coming for your guns, at least not anytime soon. You may see small defeats, such as the banning of "assault weapons," which will greatly increase the value of your previously purchased assault weapons and hi-cap mags. Although you will want to sell them quickly before the pendulum swings back in the other direction.

How am I so sure, you ask?

Because I know for a fact that our politicians are not about to make the same mistake that the Europeans did.

What do I mean by that?

It's simple; gun control is perhaps the highest value political capital currently in existence, and the second that either side gets its way, that political capital will become instantaneously worthless. And more importantly, the lack of a gun control battle will greatly threaten the two party system in this country, which works hand in hand to defraud Republicans and Democrats alike.

If you're not yet aware how that system works, it's like this:

1. You vote Democrat to save yourself from the ever present threat of gun violence, and the Democrats in turn pass legislation that treats your paycheck like their own personal piggy bank.

2. But your neighbor votes Republican to save himself from the ever present threat of gun violence (he just has a different solution to the same nonexistent problem), and his Republican candidates then pass legislation to spend your money (that your Democratic candidates stole from you in the first place) on foreign wars that have no purpose besides making politicians and their friends rich.

3. ...after which the Democrats and Republicans meet up at the country club to drink hundred year old scotch and smoke Cubans, while laughing at the fact that you just financed their latest murder for profit scheme.

The cold hard truth is that the status quo is in the interest of both parties, and neither party has any intent on giving it up by giving their voters what they want. Gun control is the carrot on the stick that keeps voters coming back, over and over again, to reelect the same trolls who are robbing them blind and murdering in their name.

So have a gun, don't have a gun, have thousands of them...I literally couldn't care less. What you do with your own money is of little concern to me, especially if it doesn't effect me in any way, shape, or form.

But...

If you're still finding yourself giving the proverbial $%#@ about guns, here's a list of things that should really scare you. After all, if you're going to worry about things you can't control then you might as well worry about something that actually matters...right?

1. Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are all exploding at an alarming rate, seemingly in proportion to unhealthy eating habits, and yet no one seems to care. And these are things we can do something about! Both individually and as a society!

2. The Federal Reserve is a private bank that our Congress has given the power to print fake money out of thin air, robbing Americans of their savings through inflation. This is known as fractional reserve banking, and if you try it you will be put in jail for fraud, and rightly so. Yet our politicians and their banking buddies have legislated themselves the legal right to steal your money.

3. The taxes incurred by American workers are higher than anyone can even begin to imagine, and the returns in entitlements are minuscule by comparison. Your money is taxed at every turn. It's taxed before you even get your hands on it, it's taxed when you get it, and it's taxed when you spend it. And this isn't even including all the taxes, tariffs, and fees that are incurred by the people who make and transport the things we buy, which translates into much higher cost of goods and services. All things being told, it wouldn't surprise me if the government gets its grubby paws on 80% or more of our earnings. Moreover, property taxes ensure that you never actually own your property free and clear, meaning we are in fact living under feudalism.

4. Our regulators haven't learned a thing from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima; and there is no long term solution for the storage of nuclear waste. Additionally, seismic activity is increasing both in terms of frequency and magnitude, yet most of the world's nuclear reactors are still highly vulnerable to earthquakes. Don't think it effects you? Consider that radiation from Fukushima forced dairy farmers in Arkansas to throw out contaminated milk.

5. If nuclear meltdowns aren't enough to scare you, then consider that an unknown, but certainly large, number of nuclear warheads went missing during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just to prove that these warheads are commonly available on the black market, several journalists in recent history have traveled to Eastern Europe, where they successfully purchased one with alarming ease.

6. The NSA is listening to you through your cellphone, even when it's turned off, and it's 100% legal according to the laws that have been passed by your favorite officials, from both parties, all in the name of public safety. Yet these are the same folks who apparently have no concern over hundreds of nuclear warheads running around loose on the black market.

In conclusion, I will leave you with this:

You've heard the story of the boy who cried wolf, but what your teacher didn't tell you was that the boy was busy looting the town treasury while everyone was shuttered inside their houses-and no one caught him because they were too busy being mortally afraid of an animal that rarely attacks humans.