Because Anti-Gunism Is a Medical Condition
At a speech planned for the near future, the event sponsor proposed this introduction:
“Having written ten books describing American gun law at the federal and state levels, Mr. Korwin has found many people’s thoughts about guns have as much resemblance to reality as lunar rock has to green cheese. He hopes to dispel some of the myths and replace them with a more informed approach.”
It’s a good start. My goal is to present a case in a way only irrational bluster and gun haters could dispute. History shows there’s plenty of both. I begin with some foundational principles, that seem immutable to me:
- Stealing someone’s personal property is a punishable crime.
- An unprovoked physical assault on a person or property is a punishable crime.
- It’s legal for a woman or man to defend against an unprovoked violent attack, repelling force with force.
Disarm everyone, bad guys first.
Philosophically and spiritually I would say I’m a utopian pacifist—I would like no weapons of any kind on the surface of the Earth, in an era of enduring peace, prosperity, and abundance. This is indeed utopian. It’s impossible while the four horsemen of human havoc exist—angry hungry stupid and wicked.
So I support disarming everybody, bad guys first.
Until then, I find it hard to support disarming any innocent person.
If we could wave a wand and make guns disappear, the communist Chinese would make new ones. And the Italians (Beretta), Brazilians (Taurus), Russians (AK-47), Austrians (Glock), indeed all armed nations and basement tinkerers would be in business making the Iron River.
It’s easy to imagine a gun-free world. Just go back to pre-gun times, and what you get is Genghis Kahn, Julius Caesar, Vlad the Impaler, and my favorite—Xena the Warrior Princess. It was a bloody mess, far worse than planet gun.
Most people are misled about all this because if it’s in the news, and it’s about guns, it’s probably 100% wrong. Yes, 100% wrong. For example, four people were shot recently in Philly, receiving saturation media coverage. No—they were murdered. The media doesn’t like calling it murder, placing emphasis on criminal activity. It defeats their constant guns-are-bad narrative. Shooting is a sport. Murder is a crime.
One million DGUs (defense gun uses) every year (13 separate studies show between 76,000 and 2.3 million annually, NCVS, FBI, Kleck) get virtually no coverage, so the ratio for this story is about 250,000 to one against balance. Then 7,000 inner-city murders annually (with few prosecutions!) are censored. 100% deceptive, misleading, wrong.
It’s not a political problem, it’s medical—hoplophobia—which the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) and mainstream media rejects. Media’s swift easy focus on guns should be on criminals. We’re led to false conclusions—this common thought:
“They should take away all the guns.” That’s irrational bordering on deranged. Who is “they”? And who makes them give up their guns? How?
People arguing from total darkness are often stunned to learn you don’t need certification or training to obtain a firearm. That’s exactly how books or microphones work—uninfringed fundamental rights. I encourage universal gun safety training to get a high-school diploma. Train everyone. Other nations do. Our civilian marksmanship law already exists, use it. Public school systems adamantly object.
Gun permits, disparaged as permission slips, should only be issued to criminals. You start to see the oxymoronic paradox.
A common erroneous analogy is often drawn: We license drivers and register cars so why not license gun owners and register guns? At first blush this sounds right, but the analogy isn’t parallel. It’s a subtle but seductive logical error.
If car-and-driver registration is valid, we should register pilots and planes. That’s a parallel argument, and we do. By contrast, licensing writers and registering printing presses (basic rights), is also parallel, but obviously, we don’t, and should not, unlike dictatorships where spoken words are recognized as more threatening than arms. “We would not allow ourselves to be challenged with guns, why would we allow that with words, when that is far more dangerous.” –Stalin
Self-defense is honorable, recognized since The Code of Hammurabi (1750 B.C.) and the Bible. Innocent life is precious and must be protected. Self-defense laws and rules are proper, needful, and deserve support, especially recognizing inescapable human corruption in leadership and judicial systems. We like to think our nation is above banana-republic corruption but recent events clearly demonstrate we are not.
The bottom line on this, and it’s an individual choice: You can let the lion eat you and your family, or use anything at hand, or the best thing available, to protect yourself and survive—at your option. You remain free to perish at will. Removing that choice from others is pure tyranny.
Corruption in the system increases the imperative for armed self-defense, the ultimate repository of liberty. You can’t arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.
A quick word about following “news”: Watch out for “we” and ask yourself, “Who exactly is that?” When you hear the constant phrase “I think…” know that news has ceased and opinion follows.
In my advanced program, we can look at the true roots of the rights to arms: Balance of power, Colonial-era “savages,” hi-powered assault weapons like long bow, crossbow, and trebuchet; and assault is behavior, not a type of hardware.
The struggle for gun rights is a small piece of the larger struggle for the rights of all humans.
Alan Korwin, a national columnist, award-winning author of 14 books, and veteran of more than 1,000 radio and TV interviews, has been writing as The Uninvited Ombudsman since 2006. His next book, Why Science May Be Wrong, in underway. Reach him at GunLaws.com.
Image Credit: Pixabay
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.