The Law of Unintended Consequences and Gun Control

President Obama's policies have been criticized by some as harming the economy. The "stimulus" policies he has put into place are not working, according to critics. Indeed, the economic recovery has been unusually slow.

The president's policies have been very good for one industry, however: firearms. With the president embarking on a campaign to ban so-called assault weapons (this article calls them "modern sporting rifles") and high-capacity magazines, demand has skyrocketed. That article quotes one manufacturer of AR-15′s as saying they have a one-year backlog of orders.

Career politicians rarely have a working understand of economics or sociology, and the reactions to certain restrictions or prohibitions for political gain are sufficient evidence of this ignorance.

The president's strategy to stimulate the firearms industry is not new or untested. When the federal government required new toilets to limit the water they used per flush in the early 1990s, that increased the demand for high-capacity toilets. The president's proposed firearms policies are merely taking a cue from policies that have been proven in the past to increase demand in a particular industry.

Full article: http://blog.independent.org/2013/04/25/the-presidents-policies-economic-stimulus-for-one-industry/

Expanded Background Checks Fail in the Senate

The U.S. Senate stood on the side of liberty today as it killed two measures aimed at restricting the rights of law-abiding private citizens.  In a vote of 54-46, the Senate rejected the expansion of background checks to include sales between private citizens, thus keeping the so called "Gun Show Loophole" alive for now.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein could not even rally a simple majority vote in her attempt to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning weapons she feels are objectionable.  Her bill failed by an embarrassing margin of 40-60.  Both of these represent huge defeats to the Obama Administration.

Feinstein and fellow fearmongers are seeing the lack of public support for her efforts by the lack of legislative support. If legislators gave support to Feinstein, they would find themselves out of office during the following election cycle. The gun control anti-rights advocates are seeing public backlash at bad legislation. 

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/expanded-background-checks-fail-senate-myth-gun-show-loophole-lives-0053611

Obama “willfully lied” on guns

I have yet to meet more than a handful of what empty suits like Obama say are part of the 90% of the population that believes gun control works. It is willful ignorance to believe that laws can stop violence. 

http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/40214255/0/alternet_breaking_news~Obama-The-NRA-%e2%80%9cwillfully-lied%e2%80%9d-on-guns

Brash Obama Rush to Judgement

Despite no inclination to the motivations of the suspected Boston bombers, Obama seems more than willing to make assumptions and display double standards regarding motivations:

One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not — cannot — prevail. Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they've already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized. They failed because we will not waver from the character and the compassion and the values that define us as a country. Nor will we break the bonds that hold us together as Americans.

Fortunately, while the lamestream media remained silent, witnesses were using technology to remind us why traditional media is nearly irrelevant and dead. Reactions by law enforcement and media were to threaten independent reporters and fire up the spin cycle, twisting the facts to support the official story.

That sounds like great advice.  Too bad nobody gave it to the whiny hyper-partisan Barack Obama who had an emotional meltdown in front of the cameras when his push for gun control legislation failed.  He certainly didn't have any trouble "jumping to conclusions" and making a "rush to judgment" about the "motivations of the individuals" who opposed him.

Fortunately, supporters of Obama and the anti-rights gun control lobby are relying on ever-declining emotional support. As the facts about gun control become more apparent, just as legitimacy of state (mainstream) media is in decline, the population begins to see that gun control is about control and guns are a sidebar. The debate has little to do with facts, and even poster children like Giffords are less that convincing, since numerous laws were on place that should have prevented her own tragedy if laws actually prevented crime.

No rational argument for gun control is advanced by the likes of Obama or Giffords.  Their entire case rests on scurrilous presumptions about the motives of those who oppose them.  They deny the very possibility of reasoned disagreement.  

Obama's philosophy treats his political enemies far more harshly than the heavily-armed and murderous enemies of the American people.

"Obama's rush to judgment" http://feedly.com/k/10q5wQ4

Can Control Tough Sell After Boston Tragedy

Given the recent Boston tragedy, and the lack of firearms as a primary destructive tool, anti-right gun control proponents are likely to face more resistance as communities see the need to defend themselves against unknown threats, exacerbated by the inability of law enforcement to prevent the first act of "terrorism" in this country in years, despite a tenfold increase in spending on "defense" and the militarization of the domestic police. If anything, America is looking more like Nazi Germany as a result of the efforts to make the country more safe, yet is a miserable failure.

Gun Control Push Will Be Even More Difficult After Boston: http://feedly.com/k/Zapc8M

The Second Amendment is Dead, Long Live the Right to Bear Arms

Perhaps the best way to guarantee the posterity of the natural right to bear arms is to prevent governments from having any authority over that right.

http://zerogov.com/?p=2928

Irrational Arguments and Fearmongering

Anyone believing that gun bans will reduce violent crime is either ignorant of the nature of criminals, or supporting them.

I am neither conservative nor liberal, and it is an intentionally divisive effort to try to force people to choose one side or the other on a debate like this, especially when the facts do not lend themselves to the idea that gun control promotes public safety.

Unfortunately, one side of this debate tends to rely on an emotional argument as a result. "Think of the children" is a common argument in the debate, hoping that few will take a contrary position that makes them appear to oppose things that would make children safer. Gun control, anti-rights proponents tend to rely on irrational arguments and fearmongering, rather than statistical analysis of violence or the actual effects of firearms regulations.

I am a bit of a nerd, looking more into the science and statistics of an issue before making a strong case either way. I would love to live in a world where the prohibition of a thing made society safer, but this is the real world, and we only have to look at alcohol, drugs, assault, and violence to see that despite numerous attempts to get rid of society's problems through law, most people tend to ignore bad laws, and criminals by nature ignore them as well. The difference is that criminals intend to do harm or violate the natural rights of others, and laws are entirely ineffective at changing the nature of criminals. Thornton's book on the subject helps to dispel the idea that prohibition can have more positive benefits than negative costs.

Worse yet, a complex, convoluted, and contradictory network of laws and regulations tends to snag nonviolent people who do not seek to violate the rights of others, criminalizing the acts of those who are obviously not criminals. Most people can name a law or regulation they have recently broken and not feel bad about it, for a victimless crime is not a crime. 
 

JPFO Neil Smith: Jim Crow Rides Again

Oleg Volk on the racist origins of gun control:

"… their real goal isn't disarming the criminals but disarming everyone they view as potential political opposition. Some segments of gun control are aimed at producing a local electoral majority, the prime example being the Colorado bills that would cause enough pro-gun people to move out of the state to ensure a long-term Democrat majority. Others are aimed at disarming the "most probably enemy" population groups, and both political parties are guilty of that to some extent, though the Democratic party does it far more."

http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130404.htm

The ignorance of gun control

This is the failure of gun control laws: the idea that criminals will act against their nature, lay down arms, and stop being criminals simply because some act is illegal. Not only is this idea ignorant, it is also dangerous, because the same proponents of this sort of failed public policy also believe that disarming those who would defend themselves against criminals are the same as those criminals. Unfortunately, as with economics, those that tend to be the most vocal are also the most ignorant, but at least the hoplophobes are in the minority.