Tuesday, January 15, 2013

"The wrong hands"

One thing I hear from almost every "side" in the "gun debate" is this idea that "we" need to keep guns "out of the wrong hands".

Just whose hands are "wrong"?  And who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"?  Government employees?  I laugh at the absurdity of that suggestion.

I suppose "the wrong hands" are those who want to hurt you.  If that's the case, cops and other government employees have the "wrongest" hands of all, along with the thuggish members of freelance gangs.  Don't make a distinction where none exists.

There is no possible way- NONE- to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" without also keeping them out of a lot of the right hands.  Even the "minor" layers of difficulties that any good person could easily pass through tend to dissuade a lot of people from going to the trouble to own or to carry a gun.  It adds expense to the cost of a gun, either in dollars or in time.  Since dollars are nothing but a placeholder for time you traded to someone else, there is no difference.  A lot of good people also don't like being treated like a criminal by a gang of demonstrable criminals- and then told by the brainless criminal drones with FBI computers whether or not they are "worthy" of defensive tools.  It is incredibly insulting.

And bad people will never be inconvenienced in the slightest.  They'll buy or steal what they want- whichever is easiest.

I would prefer to live in a society where guns are freely and openly available, with absolutely zero restrictions on anyone, so that more good people will not feel like criminals for owning and carrying weapons.  Good people outnumber the truly bad ones.  Any additional liberty will empower the good more than the bad (who already do whatever they feel like anyway).

So, if you are truly a pro-liberty person, stop giving any attention to the absurd "wrong hands" nonsense.  It makes you look like an anti-liberty bigot.



  1. Lots of people can't be trusted with lots of potentially dangerous items. A person who "cannot be trusted with a gun" cannot be trusted with a knife, or a car, or a power drill, or a baseball bat, or a can of gasoline, or even a box of matches. Someone who can't be trusted with a gun, can't be trusted without a custodian. There are a lot more good people than there are truly evil people. As I told a liberal last night, President Obama apparently agrees with me: when it comes to protecting your family from evil/crazy people out to harm them, a good guy (or 11) ON THE SCENE with a gun, beats the hell out of a "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign and a police dispatcher on the phone.

  2. "Someone who can't be trusted with a gun, can't be trusted without a custodian.

    I think it's even less complicated than that: Someone who can't be trusted with a gun, can't be trusted. A custodian (assuming they survived being responsible for the person who can't be trusted) would only protect them from the consequences of their actions.

    I'm not sure I would categorize everyone who would seek to harm Obama's family as "evil/crazy", though. They might just be "patriotic". ;)

  3. Wasn't Adam Lanza's mother more or less his custodian? And yet she let him have access to her guns. However, what the liberals don't realize or refuse to see is that if we took all guns out of the hands of everyone but the "authorities," a gun-smuggling business would pop up (like drug smuggling) and any "bad" guy who wanted a gun would get one, but honest citizens would be defenseless. That would be a win-win situation for the "bad" guys. Like I have said many times before, no cop will magically appear between you and the bullet of a bad guy. The two-fold purpose of cops is to follow up on clues after a crime had been committed, and to harass otherwise honest citizens.

  4. Hawk:

    "...who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"? Government employees?..."

    For the "we" I suggest this:


    Of course, "...If guns are banned only criminals will possess guns..." This would mean government and a few non-government criminals.