Gun Control

“You see in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.” The character played by Clint Eastwood to the character played by Eli Wallach in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Deputy: If two men disagree around here, they shoot it out.
Sheriff: Yeah, that’s right.
Deputy: If the winner is justified, we make him a deputy. If he’s wrong, we hang him.
From the 1932 movie Cowboy Counsellor


(Obviously the article is mainly about The United States as that is the focal point of the gun debate but it has ramifications for the rest of the world in the long run.)

Guns, love them or hate them, have been one of the major factors in advancing the human race. In reality war has actually been the main factor but guns changed war and made it easier to attack and easier to defend. It sped up the pace. Of course the invention of guns would never have been possible without the invention of gunpowder. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese in the 9th century. As at that time there were no guns it was not called gunpowder. It was used extensively for fireworks but the Chinese did make a military use of it also. They made explosives and crude cannons and rocket projectiles which they used in warfare. Some erroneously claim the Chinese used it only for fireworks but that is not so. Gunpowder spread to Muslims in the Middle East by the invading Mongols and then to Europe and where what we know as the gun was born.

For some time now the news media has fed the public a steady diet of gun violence. This article is not going to focus on the violence of war or insurgency but the violence attributed to the private ownership of firearms. It is also not going to cite lots of figures, statistics and data that can be used by either side to support their claims, when such information can be manipulated and is open to different interpretations and can be argued over for eternity. The focus will be on the coming need for guns because of an out of control world with out of control problems that has reached the breaking point so the focus will be on hopefully reinforcing much of what many of you already know. The problems are numerous which many on both sides ignore when they don’t have a solution or they don’t fit nicely into unrealistic visions. While some gun incidents are from outside America most of them are within America’s borders. This is not surprising since the majority of private gun ownership is in the United States.

According to the Small Arms Survey by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Switzerland there were 875 million small arms in the world in 2013. Of these roughly 75% (650 million) are privately owned. In a Wikipedia entry under the title Small Arms the following is the opening paragraph: “In international arms control, small arms include revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. Together with light weapons (heavy machine guns; hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems; and mortars of calibres of less than 100 mm), they comprise the Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) protocol.” That is a far broader range than most believe as many weapons would not be on the list by what most people think of as small arms or light weapons. Military organizations account for about 200 million and 26 million are in the hands of law enforcement agencies. The civilian population of the United States has about 270 million (many on both sides believe it to be more) which is roughly 40 or so percent of the privately owned weapons worldwide. It is more than the combined total of military and law enforcement ownership. In 2014 the private gun ownership in the US was 97 guns per 100 people. Of course this does not mean that 97 out of 100 people own guns it means that if evenly distributed 97 out of 100 people would have one. It is not hard to understand why most gun violence is in America as when America was the number one nation with automobiles on the highways it had the most auto accidents.

When an incident occurs and the media jumps in and feeds it to their web sites or airs it on television there are always the people that equate ownership of a gun to some type of compensation for a sexual dysfunction or size of the male sex organ. News commentators, authors and pundits make the same accusations. How they will interpret this with the large and growing number of females that are becoming gun owners is yet to be seen. I am sure nothing will be mentioned about the size of the bore (the diameter of the hole in the barrel). Here they will probably tread lightly.

The media loves mass shootings and school shootings. One can, without too much imagination,  almost see them on their hands and knees at night praying for gun violence in order to push their agenda. With little imagination one can also see their eyes light up when they find out one just occurred. The number of people killed in school shootings and mass shootings is not as many as is being depicted. School shootings, like a large highway pile up of vehicles slamming into one another and jetliner aircraft disasters, are big news so are much more sensational. Sensation brings a large audience and high ratings for the media which ultimately translates into a larger bottom line. An explosion in a large fertilizer factory in Texas made headline news while a house explosion barely, if at all, would warrant even a casual mention.

One question that is always interesting to ask is who benefits on certain positions from certain acts or incidents. Whose agendas are advanced by something that happens either for good or bad? As horrific as a mass shooting is it is always a great media story. Many in America find the media sensationalizes these occurrences as it enhances their ratings which of course means enhanced profits. It is the same as with incidents involving race, gender, lifestyle and numerous other subjects. A story that is a minor story, if it is anything at all, gets blown up to appeal to the emotions or fears of the viewers, and of course voters. It is so obvious they exploit many incidents to the point where they are actually encouraging violence. Racial incidents are used all the time. Violence is always so sensational.

America is a violent nation it must be admitted. D.H. Lawrence said: “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer”. There are many very good nonviolent people but they are the ones that will need guns the most to protect themselves from the bad and violent. The good folks will be the ones most adversely affected by gun confiscation and will be doomed to perpetual victimhood at the hands of criminals. The present powers that be value and promote victimhood as a way to keep democracy going. By creating social problems they are assured of turmoil which converts to votes. As what was asked in the previous paragraph who benefits from increased gun violence? Easy answer, those opposed to guns.

Even in other nations self-defense is important and should be maintained and the ability to do so should be available to all. Good people are in danger everywhere. The bad and the criminals will always be able to get the tools of the trade. The unscrupulous will be willing to supply them and criminals have much easier access to the black market. The drug cartels, if deprived of the drug trade because of legalization, will step in to fill the need. The pro-drug crowd always talks about taking the profit out of the trade like they think the drug cartel members will all become priests or something. These people decapitate people for funzies, they will not be happy working in convenience stores. The philosophy of the arms merchants, and most businessmen is well described by the words of an arms dealer in the movie Lord of War. “There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That’s one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?”

Philip Wylie in his book Generation of Vipers written in 1942 as a critical look at American society is more applicable today on a worldwide scale, due to Western (particularly American) influence, than at the time of its writing. He summed up America quite well in the chapter on Businessmen: “Think, for a moment, about the “stock” of this nation, not in the common-school-history manner, but in its opposite, as we are thinking about most matters here. At first, our shores were reached by many who were trying to escape religious persecution; this willingness to uproot their homes for an idea showed spiritual hardihood. But these were soon outnumbered by persons who came to make their way, seek fortunes, escape penalties of the law, and so on. Batches of assorted criminals were dumped on our littoral-some mere political exiles, others thieves, gamblers, minor scoundrels, the incurably indigent, the chronic riffraff of several nations.”
“When the 18th century ended, and man power was needed for the exploitation of the West, the sole test of a man’s suitability for citizenship in this lofty and intricate Republic became, in the case of millions, his ability to swing a pick. With these day laborers-as the legend of gold paved streets spread to Prague, Copenhagen, Oslo, Minsk, Omsk, Constantinople, Naples, Vienna, Dresden, Toulon, and Hong Kong-came other millions, on their own, not muscle imports, the persons who wanted gold even if they had to dig it out of the gutters. Some headway has been made in instructing them, and their descendants, about democracy; but we should not forget that, while they paid loud lip service to our ideals at Ellis Island, they came here in the first place to get.”
“One reason for the fearsome default of democratic government is to be found in these persons and their descendants, who must now number half of the populace, and their identification still with their basic reason for being here. ………………………… The D.A.R.’s, Elks, Masons, legionnaires, and everybody, pretty much, come from this mixed breed of fortune hunters and share, without thinking about it, large and crazy idea that America is a place where you can get a million dollars for nothing. They feel cheated if it falls short of that rather arbitrary sum.”

The Second Amendment to the American constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There are two diametrically opposing positions in America on the issue of the right to own a gun running from one extreme to the other. One extreme side says that there should be NO laws regarding the right to own a gun and the other says there should be NO RIGHT whatsoever to own a gun. Most Americans tend to take a somewhat tempered attitude working toward the middle from each extreme. Each side comes up with data to support outlandish claims.

In the early 1960s when I was in high school in Los Angeles County, California a large percentage of my high school friend’s parents owned guns as did many of my friends themselves. Los Angeles is a large metropolitan area and the percentage of private gun ownership in metropolitan areas, as large as it was and is, was and is much less than rural areas where it was often said you got your first gun before you cut your first tooth. In America guns were something everyone took for granted, as much a fact of life as the birds and the bees and night follows day. Television, at that time relatively new, was rife with westerns and crime dramas which had guns as important to the stories as the actors and often the stories themselves. Gun violence was relatively rare despite the large number of guns. I remember in high school in the early 60s I was considering buying a 25mm Hotchkiss antitank cannon that was mounted on a carriage with wheels for $99.00. They were offered in one of the many gun magazines that were and are available in the United States. I had no concerns about being stopped by the police as I feel relatively confident that had they stopped me it would have been out of curiosity rather than concern. (An interview with a dentist that had one who took it rabbit hunting in the desert said he admitted he didn’t hit many but when he did “man oh man”…… [I believe him!] ). Up until 1934 anyone, including minors, could order by mail a tripod mounted machine gun. There were no school shootings prior to 1934 and I certainly don’t remember hearing of any while I was in school in the 60s.

A series of events has taken place that has placed private gun ownership in the crosshairs of an antigun faction. At this point in time the United States is in decline and is on the verge of collapsing. Also at this point in time it is too late to prevent it. The United States has been touted as the success of democracy and capitalism when in fact it is the glaring example of their failures which lay in the flaws of human nature as do all human systems. I am not the only one that believes it and those of us that can read the writing on the wall are dumbstruck by the failure of so many to see the obvious. Hopefully enough will recognize the dangers that are possible, some of which are very probable, and will oppose the controls proposed. Also, hopefully the Western world will wake up before it is too late but despite all our technology we are incredibly thick-headed. (Any disagree?)

Often many of the anti gun folks have in their backgrounds terrible tragedies that motivate them. Obviously the victims of the terrible tragedies we hear and read about have friends and relatives affected. Political leaders do also. One such person is Senator Diane Feinstein of California. I personally take issue over her anti gun stance but I certainly understand it from her position. She was an elected official of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors when in 1978 the mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone, and a city supervisor, Harvey Milk, were assassinated. She succeeded Moscone as mayor so it is not a mystery why she is so anti firearm. People that have lost loved ones to gun violence often are anti firearm as it is an understandable reaction. The gun is visible, scary and loud so it stands out and takes the brunt of the blame. It is of course an inanimate object. It is people who load the bullets, commit crimes and pull the triggers.

Gun control, and weapon control in general, of one type or another has been with us for a very long time. In the early American West everyone had a gun and usually carried it with them or within arm’s length away. It was a dangerous time and help and/or the law was often hours away after they were notified, if they were notified at all. A person without a gun or a horse away from civilization was very often a dead person. This is the reason horse stealing was a hanging offense. Leave a person stranded in the wilderness without a horse you effectively killed him or her. Populations without guns were often preyed upon by organized groups or gangs of bandits. Many a town in the old west had ordinances that required cowboys from cattle drives to check their weapons when entering town. These ordinances did not apply to the citizens of the town but to the outsiders. Cowboys, after getting off the long cattle drives, usually looked for two things at the end of the long trail: whiskey and women. A lethal combination for people usually young with very little discipline to begin with. As was said at the beginning of this paragraph weapon control was mentioned too and has been around a long time and ways to circumvent the control have also been around. We were told it is difficult to accurately determine when karate was developed due to the lack of written records because the Chinese and Japanese peasants where it originated and developed were extremely illiterate. In the Far East often areas were under control either of an imperial army or of local warlords. Some were not wealthy and had to make do with what they had so many had crude armor made of wood. Karate was developed because the peasants were prevented from owning swords so a style of defending themselves without swords was devised. The weapons such a staffs and nunchucks were what the peasants used as farming tools to flail rice. The open hand that is so often demonstrated breaking boards and bricks was developed because of the need to penetrate wooden armor used by the often poorly equipped soldiers or bandits. They could not be accused of having weapons because these were only farming tools. (I did some research and found nothing that I could definitely say this is so but nothing to dispute it either and it certainly sounds reasonable.)

Among the developments that will make gun control difficult is the introduction of 3D printing with which guns and gun components have been manufactured. YouTube has a number of videos showing printed guns. A company in Texas uploaded the plans for a single shot pistol but was forced to take it down by the US government. Since then people on a worldwide scale have been experimenting with 3D printing and much progress has been made. The first guns were made from plastic but there have been developments since then. The first ones made out of plastic did not hold up well and a printed AR15 fired 6 rounds before it came apart but after a while, back on the drawing board, they managed to get the process perfected to point one fired 600 rounds before breaking up. It will only be a matter of time before they can print a complete gun out of a metal or a plastic that will hold up like metal. While at this time 3D printers are expensive but they will come down in price and if not criminal organizations can well afford them. They will just pass the cost on to their criminal customers. A plastic one is virtually undetectable by a metal detector which is one of the complaints.

In the present day and age the reason for maintaining private gun ownership should not be the often cited reason of protecting the citizens from the government but citizens protecting themselves from other citizens. In times of emergencies and disasters both the positive traits and the negative traits of human nature come out and often are magnified due to the nature of the situation. The West is declining and America is the epitome of Western culture. At a certain point decline deteriorates into decay then to collapse and then to violence and anarchy. People had better be aware they will need to defend themselves during social breakdown.

In America the majority of elected sheriffs are not in favor of gun control. In the United States the sheriff of a county is the chief law enforcement official of the geographic area known as a county. Cities are within a county and many cities have their own police forces with a chief of police. They have jurisdiction within their cities and the sheriff has jurisdiction over the entire county, and often is responsible for areas that are in reality a city but have not officially become a city, or what is known as incorporated. The sheriff is usually also responsible for the jails within the county. Many sheriff’s associations have come out opposed to gun control and many individual sheriffs have come out very strongly against gun control. They are usually more progun than police chiefs but many police chiefs are for private ownership of guns also. A case in point is Chief James Craig of the city of Detroit Michigan is in favor of privately owned guns. Those that are in favor of private gun ownership know that often law enforcement cannot get to a crime in progress in time to save many victims. They know the criminals will always have them and be able to get them and they know what type of criminals are on the streets and are concerned for the law abiding citizens.

Most anti-gun folks are the least capable of defending themselves in a disaster for two reasons. The first is they do not have the psychology to defend themselves. (A look at the comments by many anti-gun folks on Facebook news sites that are anti-gun will prove this beyond a doubt.) They make the fatal error (the same error many of the pro-gun folks make but for different reasons and on different issues) of judging everyone by their own values and standards of conduct. They think everyone thinks like they do and will be reasonable. Second in a life or death, survival situation most will think first and this thinking will cause them to hesitate. That hesitation will prove fatal to them or their loved ones. Many are going to take issue and say that thinking first is a good thing. Yes it is if the situation allows it. The essence of my point is illustrated by the following: In Los Angeles California in the 60s was a man fairly skilled in Karate. He was in a bar one night and a domestic confrontation broke out between a man and a woman. The man with the knowledge of Karate stepped between the two. The situation escalated and while he was thinking which maneuver to use on the man the woman “clocked” him with a bottle.

Many of the pro-gun folks are forever using the argument of preventing a tyrannical government. This is not my concern as any militia or combined group of militias of civilians will not overcome an authoritarian government in a technological state. It is possible in this day and age, or at least may be possible, to do so in a third world nation or a developing nation, depending on the amount of outside assistance that is available. It will not be possible in one that has the military technology to seek and destroy by drones or other gadgetry from distant locations. To get into a location that is used as a command center for drones and such would be virtually impossible (except in nations with incompetent civilians in charge.

The main concern should be from some type of disaster other than war either man made or natural. The most likely in the foreseeable future is an economic disaster. The world is an economic house of cards similar as in 2008 only worse. The economists and people in charge did not see it coming, or claim not to have. Alan Greenspan, former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve (1987 to 2006) claims to have not seen it coming.There are only two possible explanations, only two. They are all either corrupt or incompetent, no other possible explanation. Neither bodes well for the future and the safety of humanity. Many groups on both sides labeled extremists predicted it. It can be safely assumed even a large number of the sots that gather on a regular basis at the local taverns could see it coming. The corporate interests and financial institutions have again engaged in the same practices as they were doing prior to 2008 that caused the crash. The governments of the West know what is happening but they are buying time. The accumulation of debt in the Western nations has become unsustainable and a collapse is unavoidable. The governments of the West have ignored or denied problems and delayed solutions, have robbed Peter to pay Paul, borrowed recklessly and run the presses printing worthless money to finance the farce. People are too occupied with their own pet agendas to notice or care. Many are proposing solutions that cost money, money that is not there. There is not enough money for 10% of the programs they propose. When those in charge tell you not to worry about your safety because they are in charge it is probably past time to worry and terror or panic should be considered.

At this time the number of immigrant children being sent over the border to the United States has reached crises level. One finds several parallels interesting. In the war between Iran and Iraq the Iranians sent waves of unarmed preteen age children across the border into Iraq to wear the Iraqis down and waste ammunition. I would imagine many Iraqi soldiers did not like firing upon children, unarmed at that, but war is hell. We are being worn down and spending money on social problems like the Iraqis spent money on ammunition and we are being worn down by being in a perpetual state of turmoil. Many see the time coming when a movement will start to pressure for family reunification and bring the rest of the family putting a bigger strain on an already overloaded social services system. Others see numerous youth sent by drug cartels to “set up shop” so to speak. Most say they are children and out of compassion want to take them in. There is a movie called “The City of God”. It is about the gangs in the slums of Brazil. I have never been to Brazil but I have talked to two people from there and I asked them about the movie. They said there is more truth than not to the story. For those that think children are not potential threats watch the movie. There is no one that is unsympathetic with the plight of children but the point is America is being pushed past the breaking point with social problems. Some will say the examples are not applicable but yes they are. The essence is the same it is just adapted to the culture. While many are saying what does this have to do with gun control it does. The collapse of America will result in violence within its borders and without. If you are armed with a stick and an opponent is armed with a firearm you will not fare well.

Added January 2016. Europe is being overwhelmed with refugees. Germany had an open door policy and were flooded. The initial purpose was to take refugees from the Syrian Civil War but the vast majority are not from Syria but other areas. They are not refugees but are coming because of economic reasons. The welfare in many European nations is quite substantial and many do not seek employment but the welfare. Most are not employable nor do they speak the language. There are numerous videos on YouTube that show the magnitude of the issue. This is not limited to Germany but the rest of Europe as well. Many citizens in Europe are trying to purchase weapons to defend themselves. Robbery and rape have become rampant in Europe and the authorities are preventing the police from talking about it. Watch these three videos. They are short and many, many more can be found on YouTube. This can happen here as the powers that be want this. I will discuss the reason in other essays.

Another interesting comparison is what is known as the Mariel boatlift. In 1980 large numbers of Cuban refugees arrived in America after an economic crisis in Cuba. The Cuban government told anyone that wanted to leave they could do so and many US boats went to Cuba chartered by relatives in the US. When they arrived in Cuba the boat captains were told they could take who they were paid to take but they also had to take additional others too. These others were from jails, prisons and mental institutions. President Jimmy Carter, a soft hearted sap in a humanitarian gesture, opened the doors to not only good decent people but criminals and crazies by using compassion rather than reason. I lived in South Florida and many of my coworkers and good friends are Cubans. I lived in Los Angele and Orange counties in California for decades and many good friends are Mexican. I have no problem with any Hispanics as they have Western values and they have as much to lose and any Anglo. It is obvious we have not learned a damn thing. We do the same thing over and over and still get bad results which many say is the definition of insanity. As they say in Star Trek “Warp core breach imminent” or in this case social collapse imminent. Again the psychology used by Carter is the same that is being used in so many others areas destabilizing America and the world. The rest of the world will watch and witness what happens when emotions over rule intelligence. We are witnessing it in Europe. The US will be the last democracy as long as audio and visual records exist. They will serve as a warning to the dangers of social and economic destabilization when a nation is governed by mob rule and voters are a mob. The human rights activists that so gleefully gloat over their seemingly endless victories over social change will see the advances evaporate and their causes set back to the beginning or maybe before. They are undermining themselves.

The social destabilization in the West and particularly in the United States has reached a critical level. Many of the social problems being focused on are nonsurvival issues. They may be important to those that have a vested interest but only serve to distract the majority of citizens from focusing on the serious issues that undermine the safety, security and stability of the individual nations and the world. A perfect example in the US is the focusing on the name of a football team that many say is offensive and have convinced a sizable number of the weak minded of it. The name Redskins refers to Native American Indians. The term goes back to the early European colonists and was used by both them and the Indians to refer to the other group and by themselves in describing themselves to distinguish them from the other group. It is safe to assume the majority of opponents of the name are pro-gun control. This is just an example of the silliness that has permeated American society. The irrational emotional psychology goes deeper than the level of critical thinking. (If it offends Native Americans I would have no problem with it being changed.)

Disasters often cause chaos and when chaos is the order (or maybe more accurately disorder) of the day survival becomes the number one priority. The average person will need to defend themselves and their families against gangs that are criminal, desperate and violent. Many say if no one had guns it would be a level playing field. They fail to realize the fallacy of that because the violent would run in gangs and there is a difference between gangs and groups. The vast majority of decent folks would be in groups and be at the mercy of the criminals, and most criminals are short on mercy. Even if banded together in groups decent folks would be at a disadvantage. They are worried about their families and do not really have the necessary psychology to do what may be required whereas thugs have no such hang ups. The scenario of gangs and victims would be an accurate description of the state of society in most large scale disasters of any type. The complexity and the population of the world make what would have been a minor disaster in the past a major one today.

Let us think about other types of disasters other than an economic one that are not out of the question. War, which humanity seems to always be in the state of to some degree or another, obviously creates large scale destruction and the inevitable desperation and violence. Civilians fleeing battle zones are a constant item in the news as the events in Europe are proving. It doesn’t have to be a clash of ground troops as the remote warfare of today proves. In a technological state, which if you are reading this on a computer you are in, an Electromagnetic Pulse known as an EMP burst would bring society to a virtual standstill. EMPs basically destroy the circuits of any electrical device. A power outage in Canada and the United States in 1965 covered an area of 80,000 square miles and left 30,000,000 people without power for 13 hours. An EMP burst detonated at a high altitude could disable large sections of power using devices effectively bringing society to a halt. It could not be restored for an extremely long extended period of time. All electronic devices including automobiles, aircraft, trains, radios, transmitters, computers, medical devices requiring electricity, power grids and all else would be unworkable as the circuits would be fried and irreparable fast enough to prevent chaos. Even the Jedi Light Sabers of the Star Wars sagas would be rendered inoperable. While these bursts can actually occur naturally during storms they are now being developed as weapons. Whether they exist large enough at this time to disable large areas is argued but if not there should be no argument about whether they will be or not. The nuclear bombs used in WWII were on a scale of firecrackers compared to dynamite to what exists now. If knowledge is found that can be converted into weaponry it will be as it always has been. Is it possible? Yes it is. Is it probable? The answer is yes.

Also natural disasters such as famine, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and global warming would cause large disruptions in food, energy, and medicine along with everything else necessary for safety, security and stability. Deprive people of food, energy, and necessary medical care and the fact humanity is more barbaric than we like to admit will be quickly and painfully apparent. Riots after soccer games leave 50 or so dead. Sales of toys at Christmas have resulted in deaths and serious injuries. Is a large volcanic eruption possible? Volcanoes erupt often and a couple of examples would be the island of Krakatoa in 1883 and Mount St Helens in the United States in 1980. Google volcanoes and you will be surprised at the startling number. Is an earthquake large enough and strong enough to damage thousands of square miles? Yes. As the population density increases the number affected goes up. China had an earthquake in 1556 in which 830,000 were killed. How many more would have been killed if it happened today? In 2010 Haiti had an earthquake that killed 316,000. Also as the population increases more and more extremely risky measures are used to extract resources and the odds of a disaster increase. In the United States there are reports of increasing numbers of earthquakes in areas where fracking is being used as well as large scale pollution resulting from it (regardless of what some claim and want to believe).

What about pandemics? In the middle ages the Bubonic plague killed about one half the population of Europe. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed 50,000,000 people. Envision a plague with the population of today and the ease of travel. Think of the chaos if a large percentage of the population died or was totally incapacitated. The disruption in energy, food and medical supplies would result in chaos and chaos will result in violence. Our civilization is not as tough and immortal as we like to think.

Are some disasters more feasible than others? Of course but there are possibilities from one extreme to the other that we can’t foresee. If we could foresee them we like to think we would prevent them but that is not the case. One side refuses to recognize climate change is a problem and the other side refuses to recognize Islam or unrestricted immigration as problems. Even war which we should be used to by now, it being so common, we should be able to predict it but we fail. No one could foresee 9/11. Even encroaching disasters that are plainly visible aren’t properly dealt with. Case in point Hurricane Katrina that hit New Orleans in the United States in August 2005. Many sat glued to their television sets and watched it hit with the authorities knowing it was coming hours in advance and did nothing.

Let us consider even far fetched scenarios from science fiction. Let us also realize science fiction has often become science fact. How many developments of science, either in fiction or in fact, have backfired? It would not be of any benefit to go into the numerous science fiction sagas of future problems that mankind has the potential to create because it may seem so outlandish so as to detract from the seriousness of the present subject. There is a question to ask yourselves though. Human scientists are experimenting with________________(fill in the blank with something of your choosing). The people that will be using these developments are now in charge of the world. Now the question: “What could possibly go wrong?”

The main point is that disasters cause massive disruptions in populations and result in large numbers of refugees. Large numbers of good decent people fleeing danger will always be at the mercy of the criminal element. Anarchy is the inevitable result of social breakdown which to some degree or another always follows a disaster. Even pacifists understand the need for self-protection in dangerous times. Bertrand Russell was such an extreme pacifist he was calling for England to completely eliminate their armed forces when within a year WWII would begin, said this concerning self-protection during anarchy. “In a state of complete anarchy, involving a war of all against all, gold would be useless except to a man so quick and sure with his revolver as to be able to defend himself against every assailant;…… Such a state of affairs would necessarily be unstable, except possibly in a very sparse food-gathering population. Agriculture is impossible unless there are means of preventing trespass and the theft of crops.” Even in a modern state if global warming made necessary the abandoning of the coasts or any disaster on a massive scale it would be impossible for the authorities to protect the refugees. They would have their hands full protecting their bases and their own (which unfortunately includes guarding those civilian leaders responsible for the crises and eliminating the means of self-protection for the majority) realizing that sooner or later things would calm down somewhat and that would be when they would be most effective. Before then they would be wasting time and resources, both human and material, and accomplishing nothing positive.

Often the pro-gun side finds support from unlikely places and people. Governments that are or have been hostile to private ownership of guns can be used to show validity for their side. Even some people associated with nonviolence were opposed to people not being able to own firearms to defend themselves. Take the following from Gandhi:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” Mahatma Gandhi, “An Autobiography OR The Story of My Experiments With Truth”, Chapter 27, Recruiting Campaign, from a leaflet urging Indians to serve with the British Army in World War II. [5]

The following from the Russian Constitution of 1918:

“For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed.” Russian Constitution of 1918, (Article I, chapter 2, paragraph G).

Or from a couple of the Bogeymen used by both sides of just about any issue:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” Adolf Hitler, dinner talk (April 1942), in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, pp. 425-426.

“As long as I have a pen in my hand and a revolver in my pocket, I fear no one.” Benito Mussolini, 1914. Quoted in Paolo Monelli’s, Mussolini the Intimate Life of a Demagogue, Vanguard Press, 1954.

The bottom line is people cannot be disarmed with such disastrous states societies are in. The collapse is certain but to what extent it is will be determined. When the US collapses it will be much like when a large ship goes down. It creates a suction as it slips below the surface that acts like a waterfall or a whirlpool. It creates a momentary “hole or void” which the water rushing in to fill it sucks everything on the surface close to it down with it. People need to be prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones when the authorities cannot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *