One group of people naively believe that, in the absence of guns, criminal violence would be much reduced. They are quite wrong about that prediction: to the contrary, the strong would be able to bully the weak and we would be back in the Dark Ages...or the modern Third World.

Further, thinking that a mature technology such as firearms manufacture can be legislated out of existence is an opium pipe dream. Guns, in their basic form, are not very complex. Anyone with basic tools can make them and ammunition for them. Moreover, roughly 500 million functional firearms already exist. Guns, propely maintained, last for centuries.

Hi-res

Imagine a pack of hyenas stalking a human. As they close in for the kill, their intended prey repulses them with a rifle. As the surviving predators retreat, they think: "If only we could separate that human from her gun!"

People who think as those hyenas are less naive than the idealists who wish to ban guns outright. "Gun control" is a misnomer for what they have in mind. They are evil: they wish to control others. One of the easiest way to control other people is by making them defenseless.

Communists, fascists and other totalitarians world over have rendered their subject defenseless as the first step towards total control. Then they could imprison or murder millions with complete impunity.

Hi-res

Hi-res

Hi-res

Disarming others is never done for their benefit. Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit. Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder?

Hi-res

Did any people armed with rifles end up stuffed into the holds of slave ships? When we look at history, a pattern emerges: free people have guns, slaves don't. Just having guns does not guarantee freedom, just as having air to breathe does not guarantee survival.

Plenty of armed people are dependent on others for food, decision-making and the like. Being armed is just one of several essential elements necessary for freedom. Being unarmed by choice or compulsion guarantees having to exist at the mercy of others.

Hi-res

Hi-res

The Klan had much to do with the early gun control laws in America. Many of the current gun control laws stemmed from the fear of armed and independent minorities. After all, even a few determined (and armed) people can stop a Klan raid or make committing massacres like the 1923 Rosewood events too risky for the perpetrators.

Hi-res

Hi-res

Similarly, NAACP is fond of portraying their own members as too irresponsible to own guns. Many organizations aggressively advocate disarmament of their own members, apparently hoping that the feeling of vulnerability would cause people to rely on their self-proclaimed "community leaders" for security.

The periodic attempts to render Americans defenseless continue in the form of gun buy-ups conducted in the minority and poor neighnorhoods. Not only do the residents have to depend on a patently inadequate police protection but they are also coaxed into giving up their means of effective self-defense. For some reason, we do not see Hollywood celebrities or US Congressmen rushing to give up their guns in exchange for a fast food certificate or a pair of sneakers.

Just as racists pre-judge others based on appearances, gun-phobic people pre-judge inanimate objects. When you hear the phrase "keep guns out of the wrong hands", who do you think they mean to disarm?

Hi-res

Hi-res

Gay-bashing has become a hazardous undertaking lately: Pink Pistols chapters have opened nation-wide. Originally formed for training GLBT folks in self-defense skills, they have expanded to included many hetero members.

Traditionally, homosexuals have been perceived as weak, easily intimidated, in short, as ideal targets. The realization that attempted gay-bashing would likely be stopped at gunpoint ought to keep bigots from even trying.

Hi-res

Chauvinist pigs who think that "slapping the bitch around" is good fun might re-think that idea. The prospect of facing an armed victim strikes fear into the tiny brains of hostile bigots. That's how it should be.

No lawful person would wish to fire on another human. However, most people would wish to have a choice between being molested and fighting back. Should they choose to resist, who would begrudge them effective tools for the purpose?

Hi-res

Hi-res

Gun control is never about improving safety for those disarmed by it. It has only two purposes. The first is rendering people helpless for extermination or enslavement. The second purpose, more common among the US perpetrators of the practice, is to deny self-sufficiency to the victims of gun control. The same technique is used by the mafia in countries where civilian ownership of arms is rare: people must pay for protection, by voting for their "protectors" or by behaving meekly.

Hi-res

The disarming of Americans is being pushed by the means of laws prohibiting ownership or use of effective means of self-protection. Laws on Federal and local levels prohibit ownership of personal defense weapons (PDW), severely restrict ownership of older types and often prohibit carry of sidearms outright.

Violent criminals are direct beneficiaries of gun control. When the law-abiding are disarmed, they can rob, rape and murder without worrying that an intended victim would retire them from the business of crime.

Interestingly, even people in favor of gun control don't mind that sniper rifles and submachine guns are used to guard the President and members of Congress. Nor do they object to the shotguns and pistols of the bank guards. Apparently, protection of important people and their money is proper in their eyes. These same people object shrilly when a parent wishes to carrying a sidearm to protect herself and the kids. Hypocrites!