This is going to be an essay post. There will be no pictures and no affiliate links. If there are links they exist to help illustrate my points. I just have something to say and I’m going to do so as directly as I can.

That headline seems pretty direct.

It is. I want to clarify that I’m not saying that people who support gun control are stupid. I’m saying the concept is. This sounds so obvious I don’t know why it needs to be said but apparently it does: criminals don’t obey laws. That’s why they’re called, “criminals.”

I generally consider gun control proponents to be in one of three categories.

1. People who just haven’t thought this through. They see something about a shooting and think Something Must Be Done.
2. The controllers. These people realize that armed people are more difficult to control and they don’t like them. Most anti-gun politicians and media types fall into this category.
3. Cowards. They can’t even imagine the concept of standing up for themselves, especially in any sort of violent encounter. With that lack of understanding they can’t understand why someone else would want that option and so they’d rather deny them the right.

There’s a lot of overlap.

Especially between 2 and 3. Celebrities, media, and politicians are all but interchangeable in a lot of ways on this subject. If they have the money or position they hire people to carry their guns for them. The one thing they completely agree on is that the little people (that’s us) have no business thinking we actually have the right to defend ourselves. Or, for that matter, claiming any other right our “betters” don’t think we should have.

In order, then.

Keeping in mind the line between 2 and 3 is pretty fuzzy, let’s look at the list, shall we?

The people who haven’t thought this through.

For example, there’s this letter to the editor. “I would ask, how many civilians who own guns have had to use them in their own defense. In the overwhelming majority of cases the users of firearms in civil situations tend to be off-duty service personnel.”. Uh huh. According to the CDC, quite a few civilians use their guns in self defense every year. I assume that part about “off-duty service personnel” was just pulled out of the author’s ass.

The closest I can get to where these ideas are coming from is the old, “not my problem,” attitude. These people have no guns. They don’t like them. They’re afraid of them. Whatever. The point is that since they don’t see the point in having or carrying one they can’t possibly imagine why anyone else would so it’s easy for them to deny them the right. These are people who like to use the phrase, “There ought to be a law…” whenever they hear about something they don’t like.

That is a terrible attitude on all subjects. There is another side to “not my problem.” For example: you want an example of a terrible law on the books in all 50 states? Mandatory seat belt use for all adults. Why on earth is that anyone’s business? Wearing a seat belt is a great idea; don’t get me wrong. I was wearing seat belts long before the laws were passed. But who am I to tell everyone else what to do? They can make their own choices with no input from me. Or you.

Another example: do I have an opinion on abortion? I do. You don’t know what it is and you never will because it’s not important. I’m a man; I’ll just sit this one out.

The controllers.

As I said, mostly politicians with a healthy dollop of media. Politicians, of course, have a vested interest in keeping the people they “represent” docile and controllable. The media agrees with this, for some reason. There are legitimate public servants in office who intend to honor the “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” part of their oath of office. There aren’t just enough of them.

I looked and could find nothing: can someone name for me a member of Congress in the last 20 years who has a similar net worth at the end of their “service” than they had at the beginning? I certainly don’t mind people improving their financial position but I damn well do object to them doing it while they’re supposed to be serving the public.

The media are far more interested in being seen as elite defenders of democracy than they are in being defenders of democracy. Again, there are exceptions to this. I know a couple local reports who write articles that are about facts and avoid biases as much as you can expect a human to do. They are literally reporting the news, which I thought was the point.

I think people like that are mostly local. I see little to no evidence of non-agenda driven national media. Even if you agree with the agenda this is not a good thing for a news organization. Opinion sites, sure. No problem there. I visit two wildly different ones every day. Slate and Reason. I read Slate for the hysterical point of view and Reason for rationality. I believe in getting different views, even when I clearly agree with one side.

Let’s talk about that CDC study again. It’s never been published. Why is that? I’ve never seen anything where they explained it. No mention of bad methodology or some other reason to ignore it. They just don’t want their name associated with it. Because it doesn’t fit the narrative? They have all kinds of things about accidental shootings and suicides, which are facts that should be public. And so should people using guns to defend themselves.

As it is, when a Kyle Rittenhouse uses a gun to defend himself against a convicted child molester the person defending himself gets labeled as a murderer. The child molester who initiated the conflict is the “victim.” The members of the mob who were chasing someone trying to leave were also “victims.”

USA Carry has stories several times a week that they find in local outlets regarding defensive gun uses. Do any of these make it to the national outlets? They do not. At least not often.

What they will tell you about is mass shootings. Seriously, why are those national news? I stopped watching national news a couple decades ago because they stopped showing things that mattered. Some Wal-Mart shooting in Texas has literally nothing to do with me. I’m still going to go to Wal-Mart if I need something from there. There are whack jobs out there. There always have been and there always will be; what difference does it make?

Cowards.

They’re afraid and completely unwilling to deal with their own fears like adults. You can also call them snowflakes or Karens/Kyles. They think someone else is responsible for their feelings. I had someone I worked with once say that he’d be uncomfortable disagreeing with some who might be armed. Since we were at work I just dropped it, but so what if he was uncomfortable? Think about what he said. He thought his discomfort was sufficient to deny people their rights. I’ve had disagreements with people while armed. I’ve shot nary a soul.

The thing is, my guns don’t affect them so what’s their problem? I can have 50 AK’s, 50 AR’s, ten 100 round drum magazines for each one and half a million rounds of ammunition and it won’t affect anyone else’s safety in the slightest. Because I’m not a criminal and won’t go out and shoot people with them. Yes. I’m sure. I’m armed pretty much everywhere I go unless restricted by law and I’ve still never shot anyone. About 30 years ago I pointed a gun at a guy who pulled a knife in a robbery attempt and he went away. No shots fired.

As I said, a lot of celebrities fall into this category. Naturally, most of these people can Hire People to carry their guns for them and keep the rabble away (that’s us, by the way.) I wonder if they even recognize the hypocrisy. The point is, they’re afraid and, if they have the resources, will hire bodyguards. They will make sure they are protected while being more than ready to make sure you’re not.

The round up.

I’ve listed a few of the types who would deny us our rights. Fine. There are always people like that on pretty much any subject you care to mention. Alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it and someone doesn’t want someone else doing it and they’re will to put a figurative gun to your head to keep you from it.

Gun to your head? Well, yes. Mao had one thing right: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” When you pass laws against something you are telling people that you’re willing to send armed people to stop them from doing it. For things like murder, rape, robbery, etc. that is a perfectly viable thing. But for things that harm no one? That should be abhorrent to all thinking, decent people.

Finally, the end. One thing I have understood since I was a wee lad: what possible effect does a law have against someone who’s already shown a disdain for a law? I mean, telling people they can’t carry a gun will stop people like me. The rapist or robber? Well, rape and robbery are already illegal, yes?

Criminals don’t follow laws. Why would they suddenly follow this one? If someone ever comes up with a rational answer to that question I’ll listen to it. I won’t hold my breath.