Hard truths on guns

Here are some of my random thoughts on the recent college massacre, and my reactions to the knee-jerk demands of the anti-liberty bigots:

So, another mass murder in a place where guns are banned, and so the anti-liberty bigots will be blaming the gun and the people who didn't do it.

Dig in your heels and get ready for the attack of the idiots.

Added: OK, so according to some, maybe the college was "gun friendly"- at least to those with the proper state papers. Still, if your policies make it harder for good people to be armed- which is ALWAYS the result of making up rules and requiring "permits"- bad guys will still always have the upper hand. YOU have a responsibility to defend yourself in spite of onerous rules and "laws". Everywhere you go. If someone doesn't trust you with a gun (or requires "permits") they don't trust you. Don't trust them.

-

If you believe anti-gun "laws" will prevent murder, you haven't been paying attention.
If you believe anti-gun "laws" in other countries ended murder, you are in denial.

-

Here is an old post about School Shootings

-

What kind of "gun safety laws" do anti-liberty bigots imagine would work?
Go ahead- tell me.
Then I will explain why your suggestion would make the situation worse.

Anything that keeps guns out of the hands of a determined mass murderer will inevitably make it harder for good people to be armed. That will result in more mass murder- as well as more individual murder.

Whether the college where yesterday's massacre occurred was a "gun free" slaughter zone or not (and the reports conflict on that account), the fact is that apparently no good guys had jumped through all the artificial hoops put in place to make sure "the wrong hands" didn't have a gun. And death was the result. Because "the wrong hands" will ALWAYS be armed.

That's the reality. You can deny it or you can accept it. Reality doesn't care which- but your survival depends on you making the right choice.

-

The anti-gun position is delusional. The "debate" is dishonest. It is based upon false premises.

Even if anti-gun "laws" saved lives, you have zero right to forbid anyone else from owning or carrying a gun. None, whatsoever. No matter who you are.

You can't delegate to anyone else a right which doesn't exist.

If you pretend you have that right anyway, and tell a politician (or cop) to "control" other people's guns on your behalf, then you are a violator of fundamental human rights. You have become a bad guy just like the person who violates fundamental human rights by murdering. You aren't different in kind, but only in degree, from a mass murderer.

I am watching you, with suspicion, in self defense.

-

I understand the desire to make the world safe. It's not crazy to want that.

What is crazy is advocating things that can be shown to make the world less safe. Like anti-gun "laws".

The places in America where guns are most heavily regulated are consistently the places which are most dangerous- and the danger followed imposition of the anti-gun "laws", not the other way around.

If you figure America's murder "by gun" rate- but take those anti-gun cities out of the calculation- America's "gun murder" rate drops to one of the lowest in the world.

Places around the world where guns are banned are much more violent than America; the attackers just use tools other than guns. Is it somehow "better" to be murdered with a machete or a 2X4 or a baseball bat than with a gunshot? Only a crazy person would believe so.

If a person wants to murder, no "law" will stop them. Keeping guns away from them- even if possible- won't stop them. And, if they want to kill a lot of people, they will very likely seek out a place that advertises itself as a "gun free zone". "Gun free zones" are more honestly known as slaughter zones- they invite tragedy.

Believing anti-gun "laws" will solve anything is crazy.

It's OK to be crazy; it isn't OK to impose your crazy on others. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own reality.

The reality is that anti-gun "laws" are a danger to those who obey them.

.

Looking at "taxation is theft" from both sides

(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise)

Statists hate the "libertarian shibboleth" of "Taxation is theft". It makes them lose their minds and fling poo before running away screaming profanity.

As amusing as making them that crazy is, it may not be constructive... so, let's really examine the idea.

"Theft" is the act of taking property that belongs to another without their consent- with or without the threat of violence.
"Theft" is almost universally condemned. No one claims the future use of the stolen property justifies the theft.
"Taxation" is the act of taking property (money) that belongs to someone else without their consent- enforced by the threat of violence.
"Taxation" is almost universally justified by imagining what the stolen money will (might) be used for.
Therefore, "taxation" is theft.

Or... let's turn it around and look at the argument from the statist perspective:

"Theft is the taking of property non-voluntarily.
Taxation is voluntary; people would pay even without penalties.
Therefore, taxation is not theft."

Which one holds up better to scrutiny? How true are the individual premises and conclusions in each?

.