Looking for a Good Gun Control Law?

America’s gun control laws don’t control the people who make guns.

America’s gun control laws don’t control the people who sell guns.

America’s gun control laws don’t control the people who buy guns.

America’s gun control laws didn’t protect the people who were killed with guns.

And a new gun control law won’t prevent people from killing people with guns.

The only gun control law that will ever control how a gun is used is buried deep in the heart and mind of the person who governs the hand that wields it!

Everyone in America should be digging right now!

11 Replies to “Looking for a Good Gun Control Law?”

  1. It is not the weapon that kills. It is the killer behind the weapon. Since we cannot change a mans heart, we should not subjugate the innocence to a defenseless status. Criminals will always have guns or make weapons out of other things. Gun controls will simply remove the guns from the hands of the law abiding.

    1. Hi JD,

      It’s not the weapon that kills? I beg to differ.

      For what it’s worth: the notion that guns don’t kill people; people kill people – is an idea that has always been rooted in fallacy. At least in my opinion. The simple fact is: Guns “do” kill people; and people kill people, as well as themselves, with guns. It’s one the most important precepts that responsible gun owners are ever-mindful of, and it’s this knowledge that governs how, why, and for what purpose they employ them.

      I might add that:

      – not all who are innocent are defenseless;
      – not all who are defenseless are innocent;
      – not all criminals have guns and make weapons;
      – not all gun owners are law abiding citizens;
      – and that there are millions of law abiding citizens who should never have a gun in their hands.

      Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment.

      BJ 🙂

      1. I appreciate your pointing out a fallacy in my logic. That is not something I want to fall into in any discussion. However, I am not aware of the fallacy that you have referred to. If you are willing, I would appreciate a little more explanation on the type of fallacy that I have fallen into. One cannot learn from your mistakes unless you know what they are.

        I realize that my response was a bit of a sound bit. So, I apologize. The point that I was trying to make is that guns are inanimate objects. It appears to me that saying a gun kills is similar to say that a hammer built a house. A gun can be used for many things – as a hammer, to start a race, to compete in a target match, and to commit a crime. It is a lethal tool. When it is in the hand of the inexperience or inattentive it can kill; just like a car in the hand of the inexperience or inattentive can kill. It appears to me that guns used to kill in criminal activity are merely tools – a very effective and efficient tool but still a tool. I hold the position that those who are determined to act with criminal motivation will kind another tool if a gun is not available.

        I hope that clarifies my intent and if there is a fallacy in the logic that I have present, please feel free to point it out. I don’t believe my pride is to great that I still cannot learn from my errors.

      2. Hi JD,

        That I disagreed with your opening statement was not an attempt to disprove “your” logic. Unless of course you happen to be the originator of the phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!”, which I opined was rooted in fallacy.

        It’s a common misconception that a gun has to be in someone’s hands (i.e., a trigger pull) to be lethal.

        I can say that a loaded gun falling off of a shelf, etc., can accidentally discharge and kill someone. But I can’t say a hammer falling out of a tool box, etc., can build a house. Can you? 😀

        Guns, and automatic guns in particular, are marvels of human engineering. But the truth is (and it’s one I can attest to after more than 30 years of handling them) guns can and do malfunction. Guns can and do fail to operate as intended.

        Loaded long guns are apt to discharge when subjected to shock or vibration, e.g., if they’re dropped. Automatic weapons can jam and misfire… and almost all of them will at some point. Accidental discharges not involving a trigger pull can and does occur for a number of reasons: after prolonged use an automatic can become hot enough to ignite the propellant and cause a round to fire; from substandard material, poor design and/or maintenance.

        A recent case in point:

        A couple of weeks ago, a seven year old boy was shot and killed in the back seat of a truck when his father placed what he thought was an unloaded 9mm handgun on the console and it discharged.


        Guns kill people, “and” people kill people with guns!

        Wishing you a very Merry & Safe Christmas 🙂


  2. Hi BJ,

    How can you assert that? The expired assault weapons ban did prevent the manufacture and sale of those most horrible of guns. Since I cannot influence the heart of the hand who wields one, I’ll have to settle for advocating that it becomes more difficult for that hand to possess one.

    1. How ya’ doin’ Ray?

      Assertion…? I was simply sharing my sentiments concerning gun control laws and guns, and the fact that the first does not control the use of the latter. I didn’t say anything about the expired ban on assault weapons, which, by the way, did not halt the manufacturing of automatic weapons. Dealers and collectors could still buy and sell them legally. Consequently, thousands of them still found their way to urban neighborhoods via illegal underground networks… long before the ban expired.

      But that’s a different post.

      Thanks for commenting.


      1. Hey there, BJ,

        Was assertion the wrong word ? Weren’t each of your sentences assertions — particularly the first two? In any case, I thought that the ban banned the sale of those weapons. I’m not an expert, so if you say they didn’t, I’ll accept that, but that leaves me to wonder, what heck does ban mean? (I feel like I’ve just entered the Bill Clinton zone, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”)

        My understanding is that existing ones were grandfathered in when the ban took effect, which doesn’t seem like a great idea either.

      2. Hi Ray,

        No, assertion was not the wrong word, per se, just the idea of what I was asserting. And yes, one could argue that all of my sentences were assertions. But I’d like to re-iterate and re-assert 🙂 that my post was not a declaration (pro or con) of my position regarding the renewal of the ban on automatic weapons. The point of my argument was simply that gun control laws do not determine when, how, or for what purpose, a gun is used – but what does and who must.

        The federal ban on automatic weapons only prevented the manufacturing and sale of automatic weapons for recreational use. Or in other words – “who” could buy them. It made perfect sense to me, if for no other reason than the simple fact that they are not recreational toys. I could argue that there is no evidence the ban prevented or decreased the incidences of mass shootings. But I could also argue that it may have been instrumental in eliminating the choice of weapons available to those who chose the gun as a solution. That made it a law worth having.

        As always, it’s a pleasure chattin’ with ya’,


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: