A proposal for the solution to the problem of gun violence

Allow me to make a proposal for the consideration of fellow citizens of our Republic regarding our
current gun violence problems. The proposal is as follows: let's all agree to disallow private ownership
of all firearms and back legislation supporting that view. It has been obvious for some time that the
good that private ownership of firearms provides, it is clearly outweighed by the evils.
We don't really need to dwell on rare but increasingly common instances of mass murder of kids in a
school or just regular people in the wrong place at the wrong time by some alienated weirdo. It is
enough to worry about a girlfriend killed by a jealous boyfriend or a drunk guy getting shot by another
guy over $20 worth of drugs or a parking space everyday gun violence. Most gun violence doesn't
make news. It is just happening in the background.
I like guns as much as the next guy. Not just shooting them but I like working on them, accessorizing
them, taking them apart and putting them together, even cleaning them. I like running scenarios in my
head on how to employ their use in various situation from practical applications to zombie
apocalypse. But really, the easy availability of guns which makes my hobby possible isn't worth people
dying for. That seems obvious.
It's not just a hobby though. We need guns to protect ourselves from other people with guns - crazy
people with guns. After all, our gun laws are written in such as way as to guarantee any sick maniac the
god-given right have a gun or to provide a loop hole through which he can buy a gun. Then the
argument is used that since crazy people and criminals all own guns, surely we need them too. We need
them to defend ourselves. But do we really? In reality an assailant isn't going to give you fair waring
and allow you an opportunity to pull out your concealed pistol before taking out a gun to rob you or
shoot you. Even if you have a pistol with 20 rounds of ammo, you are at an extreme disadvantage if
you don't know an attack is coming.
This is because firearms are offensive weapons not defensive weapons. Having a guns is not going to
stop you from being shot by someone else with a gun anymore than having an ICBM armed with a
nuclear warhead is going to stop you from being vaporized by someone else with an ICBM armed with
a nuclear warhead. With firearms, initiative is everything. Even armed opponents will often lose when
ambushed by an armed and prepared assailant. I'm sure setting ambushes and avoiding ambushes is a
huge subject in war college because being at the receiving end of a well placed ambush is almost
certain to mean heavy losses. You are even more disadvantaged when your enemy watches you for a
few days or a few weeks, learning your routines and weakness, then makes relevant adjustment to his
plan of attack. But we shouldn't have to worry about that next time we go shopping or go to a school
play. We are not in a war zone, except we are when ever a bad guy with a gun decides this is the case.
Even if you have a pistol with 20 rounds of ammo, your assailant will likely come to the fight with 500
rounds, multiple guns, body armor and catch you completely by surprise.
Wouldn't it be easier to just outlaw the sale of ammunition? Most of these mass shooting guys don't
have the people skills needed to find and develop relationships with the necessary black market
contacts to get the ammo they need. So maybe they make a bomb but that is harder and increases
their chance of being detected. Maybe the guy who would have shot his girlfriend, beats her up instead,
but she has a better chance at survival and the process is a lot more of a fight. Maybe the guy fighting
over $20 worth of drugs uses a knife instead and the subject of the attack can counter with a chair or
broom or fire extinguisher.

Of course this is going to create a black market and smuggling. Firearms and ammunition will be much
harder to get, more expensive and require underground contacts any of whom might be an undercover
ATF agent. Of course guns will be in circulation after they are made illegal. What we should do is make
that circulation slow and difficult. Who is going to go through to trouble of getting a gun to rob a bank
when someone could just use a replica gun or even a note with the words, I have a bomb give me
money. So I admit, guns will still be out there especially for some years after a ban. Some of these
gun owning people will be the bad guys and they could shoot you with these illegal guns. I know such
a rule might leave some people defenseless. I would refer you to the aforementioned guns are
offensive, not defensive argument. Still the aim is to take the gun out of the hand of the bad guy
busting down your door.
I know there are a zillion guns in circulation now and some people are either going to hold on them or
bury them in their backyards. Fine. Let them hide their guns and wait for the revolution. Which brings
up the topic, Don't we need guns to overthrow to government when it becomes corrupt? I've honestly
heard this more than once.
The answer is no. Many popular revolutions have changed governments without killing people. No one
died when the communist government was overthrown in Germany and the Berlin Wall came down.
Nonviolent resistance led to independence from the British in India. Even the civil rights movement in
the United States was non-violent. Protest, widespread loss of faith in the system and general strikes
can go a long way. In cases of violent revolution, private ownership of smalls arms is not enough to
over through a government. Military assistance from another country is always necessary. The
American Revolution was won with help from the navy of Louis XVI of France. An honest look at the
prospect of a successful violent revolution in this country would require help or at least sympathy from
the military. An AR-15 and some pipe bombs isn't much of a match for a Bradley fighting vehicle or the
soldiers inside, armed with M4s and grenade launchers.
If anything, the prospect of revolutionaries who have decided that democracy is obsolete or the
dually elected government is too corrupt, therefore they take it upon themselves to start blowing things
up, assassinating politicians and robbing banks and armories with small arms is a very good reason to
NOT allow private ownership of guns. These people could be communists, fascists, anarchists, racists,
mercenaries of a private army, gangsters, political islamists or some other sort of religious nut case. The
revolution you want is not always the revolution you get especially when the only criteria is gun
ownership and mental instability.
Then there is the second amendment issue. Some how a well regulated militia has been interpreted to
mean a bunch of yahoos with guns. I'm pretty sure the second amendment is the right of states to
build and maintain militias which is the national guard. States already have this right and the national
guard is at no shortage for firearms, tanks, attack helicopters and other serious military weaponry. I do
dwell on the well regulated militia clause, but in case you are one to dwell on shall not be infringed,
then let me point out that a FIM-92 Stinger, shoulder fired, surface to air missile capable of shooting
down any passenger jet or helicopter from the sky is also an arm. Is the right of private citizens to
own FIM-92 Stinger missiles guaranteed by the constitution? Trick question: If you say no, you open
the door to regulation of weapons on the basis of lethality. If you say yes then you are a crazy person
and I don't have to debate you as your insanity is clear to anyone.
I think there might be some room to allow non-semi automatic weapons, such as bolt action rifles and
break barrel shotguns with limited capacities of maybe two to four rounds. These would be for hunting.
I think asking for a license and registration for the possession of the firearm and purchasing of the

needed ammo would be reasonable in these cases. Beyond that, we can't discriminate amongst firearms.
They are all lethal in their own way. Pistols are perhaps the most lethal according to statistics. Assault
style rifles are great for murdering little children in classrooms while you fancy yourself as some kind
of vengeful anti-hero, shotguns are accurate and very powerful at short ranges. I propose we come
together and agree to get rid of them all. They are not doing us any good aside from a bit of wholesome
family fun where a family member occasionally, accidentally gets shot to death. The potential for future
harm is guaranteed and seemly guaranteed to get worse.