Gun FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions (and answers) about Guns, or the Gun Control debate.

Frequently Asked Questions (and answers) about Guns, or the Gun Control debate. People that don't know these answers off the top of their heads aren't qualified to have an educated opinion, and we shouldn't run society by the tyranny of the ignorant..

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-07-21

ℹ️

What about an "all out gun ban?

If gun control works, then it would be reasonable to take them all! If it doesn't work, then virtually all gun control is unreasonable! Pick one.

The worst mass murders were done with box cutters, bombs, or in countries with the strictest gun-control, so we know it doesn't work. Thus, "nobody wants to take your guns" or "we just want a few 'reasonable controls'" are both lies. Whether Gun-controllers are lying to us, themselves or both doesn't matter. I've never met the gun-controller that would be satisfied with X, when X means their neighbors will still have guns, and mass murders/crimes will still happen with guns. X is always the beginning to Y (a police state). Thus compromising is compromising towards a police state. We know that (a) "gun control" is a fraud (b) the liars aren't being reasonable (honest) (c) that Prohibition failed miserably with Alcohol, Drugs, Music/Software piracy, which are harder than it is to make/smuggle guns. Why do the gun-controllers think this will be the one exception where prohibition will work?

Do gun bans work?

Nope. Not that we can tell, or at least not what we intend it for, or we wouldn't be having this debate. Why would criminals obey the law? Why would people that don't believe in the law, obey it? Thus all it can do is empower criminals, and turn gun owners into criminals.

The gun-controllers will throw out various logical fallacies to support their position, but each crumbles under the slightest scrutiny or information: which is why they try to shout it down or oppress those that know the facts and keep their low information supporters, their supporters. I have yet to meet a high information (and honest) gun controller.

Doesn't the U.S. has the most/worst mass murders? Nope. Places with strict gun control or bans like Russia, India, Norway, Germany, France, all don't look so good.

Does Gun Control stop mass murders? The biggest mass murders have been in places with strict gun control, far stricter than in the U.S. and would never work here. And in fact, virtually all of the mass shootings in the U.S. were either done by government forces, or in gun-free zones because shooters are smart enough to pick places where people can't shoot back.

The media/left claims U.S. murder/crime rate is higher than other nations, but is it true?

Not so much. The U.S. ranks #121 safest out of 218 countries (middle of the pack), but #4 safest out of 49 counties in our hemisphere. And our crimes and murders are trending better than most other countries. When you adjust for culture/race/immigration? You find we're even better.

Basics: If gun control worked (or guns caused crimes), we'd be the worst in the world. And places like Sweden, Israel that also have lots of guns would have been crime ridden miseries (they aren't). Our crime and murders have been trending down whereas most of the AOCE countries have been trending up (despite gun control). Many will try to cherry pick either "gun crimes" instead of all crimes to lie. As if you'd rather be beaten to death with a club over being shot, or raped at knife point over gunpoint. The rational care about crime/murder, not the tools used. NOTE: your survivability rate over being stabbed isn't higher than being shot (the uninformed don't know better), and people will stab you quicker than shoot you, because it is quieter. Gun control wouldn't reduce availability in the U.S. for generations (at best) so is wasted effort assuming you want to help crime/murder in your lifetime. Many will cherry pick by country -- but a lot of that is flim-flam. They pick the U.K, Canada, Australia... and then if you show them how their numbers were faked, or show facts they don't like, are they reasonable? Or do they change the topic?

Would murder or mass murder go down with gun control?
Not that we can tell. There's a cost/benefit to guns. While the left will lie and pretend there are no mass shootings that have been stopped by civilians, the facts disagree. Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) are common in the U.S. That's how many times guns are used for good (to stop a crime, or for "defense") as opposed to doing harm: best estimates are that guns are used in ≈5,000 murders per year (only about 1/2 of murders), but they're used about 2.2 million times a year to stop a crime. Do the logic on what happens if those crimes aren't stopped.

What about all the gun controllers who disagree?

A law is a reflection of the authors and advocates: if they aren't informed, then the laws they write aren't going to be reasonable. Virtually everyone that learns the facts switches sides. The vast majority of gun controllers (like the ones listed), are uninformed with no understanding of the tool, history of gun control laws, or the efficacy of what they propose -- thus what they propose isn't "reasonable".

The question is should society be run as an idiocracy? Where the will of the uninformed overrides the rights of everyone else? Because that's what this fight is fundamentally about: politically correct disinformation or ignorance winning out over gun owners individual rights and the constitution.

ℹ️

Is there such a thing as reasonable gun control? - No. At least not with any of the suggestions the left has ever offered. We have 20,000+ examples of gun laws, are any of them "reasonable"? Certainly not the vast majority of the ones passed or being pushed so far. This is of course assuming your goal is to limit crime, suicide, or mass murder. If your goal is people control and empowering a totalitarian state, and abusing otherwise legal gun owners, they've been highly effective.

What about magazine limits? - Magazine Capacity Limits aren't reasonable because:

They do not significantly impact Reload Times, or rate of fire, and have never helped with mass shootings. No one has ever closed the gap during the fraction of a second it takes to reload a magazine. And most mass shootings have plenty of time for the shooter to reload, or just switch to a preloaded backup gun.
You can buy or make high capacity magazines, revolvers take under a second to reload, and shooter could use a second gun (that's preloaded), and trucks/bombs/box cutters (9/11) are more effective than guns.
Compliance on the laws is zero, New Jersey is a great example of that with 0 high capacity magazines ever turned in. California banned them in 2001, with no measurable positive impact on crime, shootings or mass shootings (in fact there were some increases) -- so in 2018 they made it harder to buy standard capacity (what the left calls high capacity), and still no impact (also with zero compliance).
Since it can never be effective, it's just a way to harass legal shooters, and has zero impact on mass murders. So such laws can turn legal gun owners into criminals, but they can not deter criminals or determined mass shooters, and the laws in fact empower them through smuggling and the allure of something naughty.

What about military style assault weapons bans? - If it's never worked before, what have we learned?

First, it's a non-sensical term. Anyone that uses "military style assault weapons" is using a political term. The military uses assault "RIFLES", which have select fire (can go fully automatic) and have been illegal since the 1930's. Despite that ban mass shootings and their effectiveness has gone up, not down.
What the politicians want to ban is assault "WEAPONS" - a made up term in the 1980's. Those are low powered semi-automatic (not select fire) civilian use hunting and sporting rifles that look like assault rifles. Their crime? Having their controls in the same place, looking like assault rifles, and a few cosmetic features like pistol grips or accessory rails.
Assault weapons have lower firepower than most hunting rifles, most mass shootings are pistols, and places that outlawed them got near zero compliance, and they are far easier to smuggle or make than most drugs.
They were banned from 1994-2004, and even the left admitted it had zero effect on gun crime or mass shootings, which is why the didn't fight the sunset clause when it ran out. But the gun controllers appeal to the you, left and ignorant, and there's always a fresh batch coming out of indoctrination camps (schools). So they waiting until enough didn't remember the failure of the first time, and they started pushing the failure again.

So if you ask the obvious question, "how does this help?" The gun controllers will dodge, attack, or give an emotion based answer (not a logic based one). So the ban must not be logical/reasonable.

What about Microstamping? - This is engravings of serial numbers on the tip of every firing pin, so that ever expended shell tells you who the shooter is/was. The problems are:

the technology doesn't actually exist (no one has been able to make it outside of SciFi)
if it did exist, it's easy to defeat (a single dry fire against a center punch, or a quick hit with file/sandpaper, or replacing a $2 part)
most guns used in crimes, aren't by the original owner (they're stolen, smuggled, or straw purchases) so can't be traced.
Many guns don't eject casings (like revolvers), or you can buy make casing catchers
and for generations would be made before this law.

So this can't do anything for crime or mass murder, but is a heavy cost/annoyance to gun owners for something that can't get positive results. California judges ruled that while it's not technically possible to comply, requiring it is not a hindrance to legally exercising your gun rights.

What about No Fly Lists? -

Never before[edit | edit source]

Why doesn't this bother the more informed? Because there’s never, ever, been a mass shooter that was on the no fly list before. But there could be... in theory. Yet, in America we don't take away people's Constitutional rights based on what could be, or "just in case". Doing what Democrats or the left's wants would violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution -- all to encroach on their 2nd Amendment rights. But other than that, it's a good idea.

Who is on the list?[edit | edit source]

Of course that begs the question who else is on the no-fly list that shouldn't have their rights seized without due-process? Folks like Ted Kennedy, the singer Cat Stevens for the contravercial songs as Cat’s in the Cradle and Peace Train, David Nelson the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, and 48,000 other people. But since you only need to have a name similar to someone else on the list, it's much, much broader than that.

The problem is that is just the list of INTENDED folks on the list. When Ted Kennedy was snagged it was because he and 7,000 other Americans had names with some variant of T Kennedy. The most popular names in America such as: Gary Smith, John Williams or Robert Johnson, are on the list, along with everyone that shares those names (guilty or not). There are 72 people that work for the department of homeland security that are on the watchlist. That’s not counting many corpses, who are long dead, and will stay on the list for decades. Woe be to some poor sod who shares a name with a terrorists or someone that the government doesn’t like. There have been 10’s of thousands of false positives on the list, and the ACLU has been suing because of the complete lack of due process to have your rights to free travel stolen from you, as well as the bureaucratic hurdles to get your rights restored.

How do you get on the list?[edit | edit source]

Ways to get on the list include:

Be suspected of something
Travel to the wrong country
Someone thinks you said something suspicious
Have a name similar to someone on the no-fly list
Refuse to become an informant (FBI pressured some people with this)
Clerical error
Open Warrants completely unrelated to terrorism
Controversial Tweets.

But not to worry, they can change those rules at any time: trust me, I’m from the government, and I'm here to help.

Do all those reasons (plus whatever new ones that strike our imperious leaders' fancy) sound like good reasons to steal a constitutionally recognized and guaranteed natural right to self defense, without any due process?

💭 Sincerity?
If you want to see Democrats lose their nut, just propose that the same secret panel of oligarchs (that can take your rights to own a gun away), could also be used to take away your right to vote, to collect social services/welfare/food stamps, or to have/oppose a gay marriage! They’d have a stroke at the mere suggestion. Which shows they know how wrong they are, and they don't care.

There’s over 1 billion people in India that need to show ID to vote, but if you suggest that in America, they scream about voter suppression — but if they’re just randomly suppressing the rights of some random Gun Owner, they’re fine with it. After all, that law abiding citizen deserves to lose their rights because they have a name similar to someone the government suspects of writing bad folk music.

This is why the ACLU challenged no-fly lists in court and won, and in a big way. They’re blazingly unconstitutional for something as simple as air-travel (with often many alternative forms of travel to skirt them), but for a Constitutional protected natural right like gun ownership, it’d be far worse. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-opinion-and-order https://www.aclu.org/news/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed

Dear IRS, I want to unsubscribe[edit | edit source]

How do you get off the list? Nobody knows. There's no process for appeal. Basically, you just have to be connected, and talk to the right politician to force your way through it. The little guy would get screwed. So not only are you guilty-until proven innocent, they don't have a process to appeal that guilt.

Just the start?[edit | edit source]

And you know this is just the start. If they can harass the millions of innocent Americans that have names similar to folks that Lois Lerner or Democrats don’t like, then why wouldn’t they take it to the next obvious step: the Terrorist Watch List? That’s a separate list of over 1,000,000 people that the Government is just watching for suspected ties to terrorism… not counting all those with a similar name to them.

If they started this program, gun owners would have to adopt the 60’s black tradition of tacking random syllables and mishmashing names to try to increase their kids odds of someday being guaranteed their constitutional liberties, by virtue of having a name completely dissimilar to everyone else. No need to thank me little Koolaidria, thank Obamaniqua.

What about Smart guns? -

"Smart guns" (sometimes called safe guns) were an idea invented by gun controllers to have a wedge issue to divide the nation. But there's nothing smart about them. Anyone with a basic clue of them, would laugh openly, if they weren't so fucking dangerous. The whole issue is evidence of why we should tests to qualify people on topics, before allowing them to vote.

They sound good to the unaware, "we want to make guns safer" by duping them that gun safety is a real problem, and this would be the best solution to fix it, thus anyone that opposes this money wasting bad idea sounds unreasonable and extreme. But the basics are:

They do virtually nothing to improve the safety of guns (and quite the opposite for the user)
They solve non-problems, or problems that could be solved with much better solutions like gun accidents among kids, or cops having their guns turned against them
There are better/easier ways to fix the problem (like keeping the gun locked up, locking holsters, etc)
No professional would consider using them, thus civilians have even less interest
They have a horrible history behind them, which really infuriates the informed

So they're good politics, for dividing us, but the best thing you could say about them is "they're just a lot of really bad ideas, by the sincere but uninformed folks trying to cure problems they know nothing about". The less kind, and more likely explanation, is that they're a trojan horse meant to divide us for political gain, and undermine gun rights by fraudulent gun-hating extremists. Below is everything you need to know about the "smart gun" debate.

Can Red Flag Laws help? (Why are people agaisnt them?) -

Fortunately for the left, their base isn't about deep thought before reacting, it's always, "DO SOMETHING"! No matter how dumb that something is.

But as soon as you think it through, it can't actually work. Either it's tuned too low -- and it isn't flagging anyone. Or it's too sensitive and you're flagging 99% innocents for the 1% that are potentially guilty. Even that 1% is ineffectual as it is so easy to defeat as to be useless: they just wait a few weeks, steal someone else's gun, use a quieter knife/club, all while having MORE time to plan. Most mass shooters have been in psychotherapy before, so they're not going to suddenly get cured in the few weeks it takes to get through the system. The idiot-left thinks that it's just a heat of the moment thing, but if you study the topic, most plan for weeks or months -- a few more weeks isn't going to change their mind. Worse, they might go to other more effective methods like Trucks or Bombs, which both have a higher kill rate. (Even knives are nearly as effective, but hopolophobes don't understand that). So it can't do any real good, but it can be easily abused... and will be. How do we know? Because the places it has been tried, already lead to abuse, and no known preventions.

Of course I don't think reason will change many of the gun-grabbers minds. If you hate your neighbors having the tools of defense, then mere facts aren't going to get in their feelings. But hopefully, there's a few with enough intellectual curiosity and objectivity to read something like this, smack their head with their palm, and go, "Duh! That's fucking useless:", and grow as a human being. But if all of them did, then Democrats would go extinct.

ℹ️

Mass Murder/Semantics - Quick, would you rather be burned alive or shot in the head by a sniper? Semantic tricks by the left, like tracking "mass shootings" over "mass murders" or government "massacres", are done to dupe the gullible into believing that guns are more prevalent or the worst option. We'd rather nobody died. But winning isn't replacing shootings with bombings or truck attacks.
Mass Murder/Sensationalizing - We've known for 40 years, the more you sensationalize mass murder, the more deaths (copy cats) you get. Democrats/left aren't stupid/ignorant, and thus know this as they've been told by experts, and they and their media do it anyways, because little coffins make great soapboxes from which to further their agenda (fundraising, getting votes, and stealing liberty).
Mass Murder/Gun-Free Zones - Gun-Free Zones cost lives; stats prove it. Death rates are correlated to response times and Good guys with guns are closer and stop or distract the shooters faster. Manifestos document these areas are targeted. But if Democrats hardened these targets, they couldn't campaign on gun bans, so they push these policies knowing they cause tiny coffins.

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

Again, the reason that gun advocates argue with facts is that the facts support their arguments. The reason that gun controllers use appeal to emotion, word games, semantic tricks, math tricks, and so on, is because the facts and logic does not support their arguments. They're left with the choice of learn and grow to be better humans, or double down and play gotcha in order to win an argument, and lose on the causes they claim to care about.

Gun control is a losing battle in the U.S. You can't pass what they want, and even if you could get what the left really wants (door to door confiscation and complete bans), the best that would result in is civil war (insurrection) and violence for years. How is that a win? Their theory is that we would become safer, but when you look at the places they want to model us after, they aren't really safer, and what "safer" their is, is because of other reasons. So that's a hollow victory indeed. This is why most rank-and-file cops are not gun control advocates, but many politicians (their leaders and Police Chiefs) might me. Gun control is about people control, and is antithetical to living in a free society. }}

🔗 More

Guns
Guns are a tool. Gun prohibition is like the prohibition on drugs, alcohol or crime.

Tags: Guns