Trump
I'm such a fence sitter on Trump. He does brilliant things, like his tax breaks, policy on regulation and right-to-try, but he also is anti-immigration and has picked a trade war with China. Oh, and he's talking about gun control now, which is a hard no from me. We shall see if anything comes from it, but, at the moment, he is in peril of losing his support, not because of any of the things for which Democrats hate him, but for doing things that are anathema to Republicans. So, after all this time, we're still at 'wait and see' on him.
Political Unpleasantness
I'm always looking to talk with people who disagree with me. I do this mainly to learn why they think the way they do, as convincing a man against his will does nothing useful and won't stick. Fortunately. in my sphere of friends, I do have several doctrinaire liberals, and, as has been noted before, there is one rather left-leaning analyst in the Bureau, so there's that.
I know it's been done to death, discussing this unpleasantness we have going on, but it is somewhat concerning to me that the left, particularly with gun control, does not care what happens to this great experiment 'testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure'.
Disenfranchisement
A major reason we have Trump as president is the sense the common man has that nobody cares about the things he cares about. For instance, through much of the South, parts of the West and quite a bit of the Midwest, guns are a way of life. I pick guns to talk about for a few reasons, but a major reason is that they are the most contentious difference I have with otherwise rational Democrats, such as Mayor Pete, who I might otherwise be able to support.
How a Society Deals With Unnecessary Things is a Great Barometer of Freedom
So, the left argues we don't 'need guns'. Frankly, I find that argument risible, as I, personally, have used a gun to defend my property more than once, for which the mere presence of the gun sufficed. Setting that aside, this argument that something is not necessary therefore can be safely outlawed is anti-freedom.
When a society allows things that are perhaps dangerous and are not necessary, that is a mark of actual freedom. The statist, like a control freak, wishes to enumerate the things you can do; those who seek freedom enumerate those things you cannot do. In the instance of guns, some simple time-series data shows that they do not lead to 'rivers of blood' as was predicted when Texas adopted concealed carry, as crime has trended down since. Without a compelling argument that guns are in fact terribly dangerous to a civilized society, they should be legal. This is freedom.
Wait, What About Mass Shootings?
Mass shootings are a terrible tragedy. Sandy Hook is what finally made me get my CHL so I could carry a gun with me so I can defend my family. I believe that's a major difference between the leftist view of 'the government will protect you' and the libertarian/individualist view of 'I will look after myself'.
However, a simple point is that handguns, in particular, are used at least 800,000 times a year in the United States in self-defense. Think about that. That's 800,000 rapes, murders, assaults, robberies and general mayhem prevented, meaning 800,000 instances of human misery prevented. While mass shootings are deplorable and tragic, the left is asking us to allow those 800,000 instances of human misery to happen in exchange for saving, on average, fewer than 100 lives per year. This is not a good exchange.
Well, Can We at Least Reduce Magazine Capacity?
The short answer is no. The longer answer goes like this: in a mass shooting, limiting a shooter to 10 rounds makes very little difference in the deadliness of the attack. Mass shootings have been accomplished with single-shot shotguns and six-shot revolvers. When people are not shooting back, just cowering and running away, you do not need to have a rapid-fire gun to kill a lot of people. It can be easily accomplished with fewer rounds in the gun, if you think about it.
Now, assume you are facing a situation that actually happened near where I live, in Fort Worth, Texas. My son came home with a rumor of an attack with eight armed gangsters who forced their way into an apartment and robbed a family at gunpoint, even going so far as to steal the dog. It turns out it was only three gangsters, but the point still stands.
When you are facing more than three people, a revolver really isn't going to cut it. When shooting under stress, misses are likely, and a six shot revolver requires at least a 50% hit rate. Even the three people that were actually involved would have been difficult to deal with with my .38 that I'm back to carrying, as it only has 5 shots.
So, I broke out my KelTec SU-16b. It's a .223 carbine (short rifle) that would be in the group of guns misidentified as 'assault weapons' by the left. As anyone who reads this blog (all six of you) knows, an assault rifle is specifically a select-fire battle carbine, meaning short rifle that can be fired fully automatic. While it is legal to own a fully automatic weapon in the US, it requires a lot of effort, a lot of money, and is rather pointless.
On the other hand, a carbine similar to the SU-16b or one of the AR series, fires only one round per trigger pull, but contains up to 30 rounds, on average, meaning you can deal with a larger group of attackers. You can handle 10 with a hit rate of 33%. And, while the mass shooter can take his time selecting targets, the defensive person has no such luxury, as the opponent is also armed and ready to do injury, meaning you do not necessarily have time to reload.
One of the biggest concerns that is addressed by such a weapon is what happens when society breaks down, such as during a riot. People rioting will often commit mayhem, far more than merely property damage, at least setting fire to things, which can be deadly. Looting also happens. While affluent people may have insurance for their things, and, generally, can afford to replace them, less affluent people neither have insurance nor can afford to replace their things, including their car, which is part of their livelihood. Under that condition, when facing a large group of opponents, you will need a large capacity weapon. Riots like this have happened periodically in the United States.
The biggest joke so far is Biden's statement that a side-by-side 12ga shotgun is a perfectly serviceable defensive weapon. First, you only have two shots before you have to reload and reloading is slow and fiddly. Second, 12ga does a horrific amount of damage and is not very controllable. It will tear up your house, can rebound and injure or kill the shooter, and can easily kill people who are not part of the encounter, which means increased liability, both civil and criminal.
There are uses for a shotgun, for sure, but home defense is not really one of them. A shotgun is better than nothing, I will allow, but it is not a good choice for home defense. In the situations in which you need a semi-automatic carbine, you will simply be dead with a shotgun.
Besides, shotguns are not easy to shoot well due to their horrific recoil. The average person has trouble handling even mild loads in a shotgun but anyone can shoot a .223 carbine, and learn to shoot it well.
But, Certainly, You do not Need a .500 S&W Magnum
Well, the fifty cals are simply not used in crime. Like a shotgun, the recoil is horrific and it takes time to acquire the skill to use them. Unlike a shotgun, they are very expensive to shoot so acquiring that skill takes a lot of time and money. Criminals, generally, do not invest any time nor any money in improving their skills with any weapon, so tend to use much cheaper guns. Believe it or not, the venerable .22 long rifle is still one of the most-used rounds in crime because it is so cheap. While few civilians would choose to defend themselves with a .22, criminals regularly use them to commit crime. Comparably, none of the big, heavy rounds are used in crime. Neither would I use one for self-defense because of the risk of over penetration leading to damage to property and injury to innocent people.
As I've said before, a litmus test of a free society is whether it allows things that are not injurious to civil society or prohibits things that are 'unnecessary'. Since there is no reason to ban large-caliber guns, they should not be banned.
So, What Do We Do?
I really don't know. I understand that people believe something must be done, but everything we do has consequences. Banning all large-capacity or large-caliber guns will have unintended consequences, such as the above 800,000 instances of human misery. Therefore, we should focus on solutions that actually make sense.
For instance, nearly every mass shooter so far has acquired their weapon through legal means, so background checks are not the answer. Increasing the strictness of background checks won't stop mass shootings but will massively inconvenience law-abiding citizens. For instance, one proposal would have made it impossible for me to loan a gun to one of my own children. While people who know nothing of guns believe that isn't a hardship, it very much would be for me. This is why many gun owners feel that most gun control is aimed at harassing law-abiding citizens rather than doing anything about gun violence.
Linking mental health issues to gun ownership would have the effect of reducing the number of people who seek help for mental health issues so, quixotically, could actually increase the number of mass shootings. Since visiting a mental-health expert could lead to you losing your guns, you might not go. That means your mental health issue goes untreated and gets worse with time.
Better mental health support, something that actually increases the effectiveness and the number of people helped, could lower mass shootings, as well as crime in general.
Stop Ranting About Gun Control and Get to the Point
Fine. Here's the point: the leftists, particularly on the coasts simply have no idea what they're doing with gun control. They don't care about my life, my happiness, or my traditional values. To the leftist, I am the enemy. Hillary Clinton put it best when she misspoke and called us a 'basket of deplorables'. That, really, is how they view us, those of us who get in the way of their grand plans to improve all our lives.
The problem is that many of us are very angry and getting angrier. I have long said that a decent Democrat would be a breath of fresh air, as I do not particularly like Republicans, but the Democrats seem to be in a race to see who can do the most damage to my life and my pursuit of happiness.
I'd go into low-flush toilets as an example, but nobody wants to hear about my every other day toilet plunging habit. I could talk about low-flow shower heads but nobody wants to hear about how annoying it is to have to take a longer shower and work harder just to get the soap off my body. Oh, and another unintended consequence is the modern multi shower head systems that get around that law and are selling like hotcakes because people like a shower that works.
A similar stupidity is the CAFE requirements: there is actually an engineering limit to how efficient a car can get, and hitting Obama's target would mean we all drove tiny little horrid cars of very limited utility. I make no secret that I drive a Ford Expedition, and have plenty of reasons for that, but the biggest one is simply that I fit in it. I'm very tall from my butt to the top of my head and few modern cars are tall enough for me, leading to discomfort and actual injury if I drive one too long.
So, all these policies lead to more misery for me, but the leftist simply does not care. They do not care about me or about what I want or how I live my life. They know best and I am evil for suggesting otherwise. This means we can not have a civil discussion. I can go talk to them and find out why they think the way they do but they get very angry with me if I try to explain why I think the way I do.
Many on the left and a few on the right are of the opinion that Trump is the cause of the incivility in our public debate. In reality, he's a symptom. He was elected out of anger at the left and some on the right for this relentless drive to make our lives more miserable without once bothering to find out anything about us.
For instance, back to guns, the average gun-banning lefty has no inkling about guns. Go do some research, learn something about guns, maybe shoot one or two, then go read the rhetoric on the left. It's both hilarious and sad how little they know about guns. Before you decide that you should make a lifestyle enjoyed by at least a third of this country illegal, you really should spend a little bit of time trying to understand it.
It's this attitude that, I think, may finally break up this country. I've been very worried about this for a long time, and, if we can't find a way to have a reasoned, civil discussion about the things that divide us, I fear that the division will get deeper and finally manifest in dissolution. The left simply does not understand that the right won't give up their guns.
It is this disconnect that bothers me; the rural Americans are simply not going to accept the law the left wishes to enforce upon us. I do not understand why they do not see this. Simply enacting a law does not make the thing happen; you have to then enforce it. Forty years of the 'war on drugs' have led to drugs being cheaper and more available than ever before, for instance. Prohibition of a thing that a large swathe of the population wants almost always leads to failure.
Worse, it leads to corruption. It leads to a striated society where the rich can afford to jump through the hoops to get armed defense for themselves and their families, but the poor simply must die. The weak and downtrodden will get weaker and more downtrodden.
I think everyone should take a deep breath and realize that policy has consequences to other people. We need to try to understand those other people rather than dismiss, or worse, insult them. We need policy that is based on results, not hot air. We need a real effort to advance the human condition rather than empty political pandering. We need politicians who are learned and intelligent and dedicated to making the world a better place. We need to quit enacting laws in haste in response to an emotional event.
What we need, in a nutshell, is wisdom, and it is lacking.
