The Real Reason They Want To Disarm us

The main excuse anti-gun bigots give for civilians being disarmed while government and those who guard rich people are allowed to bear arms is that we lack “training.” This is the reason they most often give for their double standard: they can be protected by men with guns, but we can’t protect ourselves with guns.

This excuse though is a big whopping lie, and here’s why: training does two things: 1, it makes us more effective with guns, and 2, it makes us safer with them. Neither of these is a legitimate reason to disarm the American people.

Being more or less effective is not a valid reason for us to be forcefully disarmed, because real world experience has made all too clear that we are effective enough to stop a great many crimes. Even if we might be less effective than Bloomberg’s goon squad might be, (which itself is debatable), that simply is not a valid reason for us to be disarmed, because relative ineffectiveness in and of itself does not cause a problem.

What anti-gun bigots claim to be an exception to this is that the poor shot is more likely to miss his target and hit an innocent bystander. They try to justify their gun free zone policies by saying that a good guy with a gun only means there will be twice as many bullets flying around hitting innocent people.

This might seem like a good argument to those who are ignorant of real world data, but to those who are not ignorant it is easily seen as a big whopping lie. It just doesn’t happen, and citizens have stopped many crimes, including many mass murder attempts, even though most mass murders are committed in areas that have been sanitized for the protection of the killer by the gun free zone policy.

Being relatively unsafe is not a valid reason for civilian disarmament because most gun deaths are not accidents; safety training will not keep a person from committing suicide or murder.

It is hypocritical in the extreme to say we must be disarmed because we are unsafe, while we allow so many to die from things like texting and driving, even though texting capability could be outlawed entirely like they want guns outlawed, and that would put an end to texting and driving and save lives. Or a minimum age limit could be put on having the ability to text.

Texting while driving is illegal. But so is firing a gun randomly into a crowd. The enemy wants guns outlawed for all of us (except the ones that protect rich people), but won’t even put a minimum age limit on texting ability. I’m not saying there should be such a limit; I am just pointing out the hypocrisy that makes clear the lie in this gun control argument.

Another aspect of training is knowing when to use deadly force and when not to, and knowing how to de-escalate a potentially violent situation and that kind of thing. This though is in the category of preventing accidental deaths, and the numbers of all unintentional shooting deaths combined do not add up to enough to justify civilians being denied their right to have the means to defend themselves, especially when you compare accidental shootings by civilians to those by trained professionals.

The truth is, when states first considered allowing civilians to bear concealed arms, anti-gun bigots were telling us that it would lead to massive bloodshed, but it never did. There was no increase in murder rate corresponding to the right to bear arms being upheld and large numbers of citizens exercising that right; in fact the crime rate went down.

And now over half the states allow it without having to get the state’s permission, because real world experience has made clear the lie that was used to disarm good people. But many states still deny their citizens the right, or require special permission for it, even though their reasoning has been proven to be a lie. This makes clear that the reason they give is not their real reason.

To be clear, training, especially safety training, is a really good idea. That’s why the smiling liberals want it in the public schools, since they see the problem in a lack of training, but that damn NRA won’t let them do it.

Oh wait a minute I forgot, it’s the other way around. How can this be? If the smiling liberals say that lack of training is such a big deal that it’s the reason for a Constitutional right and the means to defend ourselves being forcefully taken away from us, why do they not want at least safety training in the schools they control?

Safety training in the schools would be a good idea, and the Constitution does in fact give Congress the authority to provide for training the militia (in Article 1 Section 8). And marksmanship training could be done there too, and de-escalation of violence and so on. So if lack of training is such a big deal, why are we not doing this? Why are the smiling liberal bigots not demanding it?

Lack Of Training Not The Ultimate Reason

Could it be that the lack of training they claim we have is not really the reason they want us disarmed?

The real reason for this hypocrisy is obvious once their lies are removed: the lives of first class citizens matter and must be protected, but the lives of second class citizens don’t. But even more important, the first class citizens want to rule over those they see as the second class citizens. This is the reality behind gun control hypocrisy, and has been from the beginning.

In fact this dynamic is so old that what is called gun control predates guns: absolute rule over the many by the few is as old as civilization, and it is much easier to do that when the few are armed and the many are not.
@GrizzledOldNamVet