Monday, March 5, 2007

THE TRUTH ABOUT REGISTRATION

Gun control advocates have a lot of areas from which to begin legislation. Their attack method varies, depending on the demographic of people they're attempting to disarm.

In the inner-cities, they try to ban inexpensive firearms. The "Saturday Night Special" is a favorite target, and often mentioned by name in their list of banned guns. Some cities have placed limits on magazine capacity or ban combat rifles like the AR15. Lately, a few legislators have come up with a rather unique solution to the problem of banning guns without having to deal with 2nd Amendment issues: requiring a license to purchase ammunition.

Some states pass laws requiring a citizen to register their firearms, and other states have limits on how many firearms you are allowed to purchase in a given time frame - you may only purchase 1 firearm/month.

If one path of attack isn't successful, the anti's simply change to a different plan. If asking the state to maintain a NICS database isn't successful, a city will simply deny a business license to entrepreneurs who wish to open a gun store.

As with any proposed law, supporters of gun rights tend to have a list of standard responses which they'll use to debate the issue.

For example, we continue to fight against registration of firearms.

Many times I've read something like this:

"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."


This is certainly true. However, it's missing the point. To adequately fight this battle, you have to understand the goal of the anti-gunner.

Once again, I need you to think.

The goal of the hardcore anti is not to reduce crime. Reducing crime is merely a hopeful afterthought. The goal of the anti is to get rid of guns. Most don't believe they'll ever be rid of all the guns... and they're not bothered by that. So long as they collect and destroy as many guns as possible, they'll believe it's a worthy cause.

Think about this for a moment, and then think about why the standard response above doesn't remove their desire to take away your gun.

I'm going to make up some numbers for the sake of illustration. Let us assume there are 10 million guns in America. Let us also assume that 1 out of 10 guns is owned by a criminal. I suspect I'm being very liberal, and the number of guns owned by criminals is a far lower percentage. But for the moment, let's go with 1 out of every 10 guns.

Now, let's say that all the law-abiding citizens registered their guns. And after the registration, somehow the anti's were able to confiscate and destroy all of the registered guns.

Are the dots beginning to connect?

Given our fictional numbers above, the anti's have destroyed 9 million guns.

The criminals still own 1 million guns, but that is not important to the anti. Their goal was not to disarm the criminal... their goal was to confiscate and destroy as many guns as possible, and using that logic - registration was a HUGE success!

I'm not testing the limits of reality. Consider this quote from Tom Gresham's site:
When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.

They want to be rid of all the guns, end of story.

Let's ponder a secondary point, which expands on my earlier article on the 2nd Amendment:

What a criminal will or will not do with his illegal gun has no bearing on my right to own one. To state it a different way: if all the criminals alive today were to give up their guns, would YOU give your gun up as well?

I certainly wouldn't.

When anti's are told this:

"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."

...they are also being inadvertently told that your reason for owning a gun is because criminals own guns. And if the lawmakers could remove the guns from criminal hands, you'd be happy to consider it.

There will always be criminals. Many haven't even been born yet. It's a fact that anti's are loathe to admit, but a fact nonetheless. Some of them illegally wield guns; others wield knives and some carry steel pipes. Others need no weapon at all, and rely on their physical size, strength, and the element of surprise.

A gun can be a resource with which to protect your life.

My life, and the worth of my life, is not defined by whether or not a criminal decides to carry a gun. My right to own a gun and protect myself is not dependent on a criminal's preferred method of assault.

Remember the anti's true goal.

It's not about reducing crime. It's about reducing the number of guns.

1 comment:

Steven said...

I have to agree with you that gun control advocates have a lot of areas from which to begin legislation. Their attack method varies, depending on the demographic of people they're attempting to disarm.

gun shop