On freerepublic.com, a discussion about the Moms Demand Action push for a gun ban following an armed robbery of a bank inside of a Kroeger’s, brought this commonly expressed question. This one was from rktman:
“Uh, how would this have stopped the robbery again? Please ‘splain that to us.”
I will explain it. MDA is playing a very long game. In order to be effective, they have to reduce the number of guns in society by large, large, amounts. They have to avoid considering any benefits gained from gun ownership. Here is how I believe they think it will work:
1. Bully retail establishments into banning the carry of guns in their stores, as a step to make guns illegitimate in society, as the combination of trial lawyers, legislators, and the old media have done with cigarettes.
2. Keep incrementally banning guns everywhere possible to make guns more and more socially unacceptable, and legally difficult to own, in order to reduce the number of legal gun owners.
3. When the number of legal gun owners are reduced sufficiently, ban the legal ownership of guns, except in extremely restricted circumstances. Think Japan and the U.K.
4. Gradually, through incremental gun confiscation, “buy backs“, increasingly draconian restrictions on ownership and use, perhaps over a couple of generations, reduce the number of guns legitimately owned by 99 percent.
5. This will start to reduce the number of guns used criminally by some amount, it does not matter how little. As soon as the number of gun owners and/or guns start to drop, immediately claim credit for any crime reduction, even if the trends started long before your legislation and are not backed up by facts.
6. Keep up the pressure, and eventually, after several decades, we will have less crimes committed with guns. This is sure to happen, because even though crime has not been reduced elsewhere when guns were banned or restricted, we have a much larger number of crimes committed with guns than the UK or Japan. Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Jamaica do not count because they are not the UK or Japan.
7. An increase in crime by other means does not matter. The goal is to reduce the number of crimes with guns, so only statistics involving guns matter. It does not matter if overall homicides increase, if they are not committed with guns. We can always turn our efforts to banning knives, as they have in the U.K.
8. We know that governments will be beneficent all along the way, because no western democracy has ever been overthrown in the last 75 years. Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and Ukraine or other examples do not count, because they were not really western Democracies. We know this because they were overthrown, invaded or became failed states, so they never were real western democracies. Blame their problems on the second amendment or on western democracies.
9. The efforts to reduce gun violence will not be rendered useless by 3D printing, smuggling, home made guns, or other technologies. This is because we will define “gun violence” as violence with guns that were produced in legal channels. If a gun was produced illegitimately, we cannot be blamed. We will also do everything we can to reduce access to those technologies that can be used to produce guns by anyone outside of governments.
So you see, sometime in the far, far distant future, after the Constitution has been completely trashed, and the U.S. is a Utopian socialist state like the UK, we will have reduced armed robberies committed with guns by some amount. (at the expense of safety and security of free peoples)
This general program seemed to be working until about 1994, except, of course, the crime rate kept increasing with more restrictions on guns. About 1994 “gun control” peaked, as did the levels of violent crime. The electorate rebelled against the Clinton gun ban. Second amendment supporters made serious gains from 1994 through 2013. The rate of “gun violence” and overall violent crime fell in half.
I do not believe that the disarmenters have sufficient media control to pull off the above program, as illustrated by the failure of the Obama push for more gun control. We are in the process of seeing if a combination of old media push and new “progressive” billionaire money can do the trick.
A serious challenge exists in the tens of millions of dollars that are being thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594. If the disarmenters fail there, after spending 10 times as much as second amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch