The Ghoulish Use of Tragedy to Advance Oppression Through Firearm Confiscation
Copyright Will Ghormley 2012

The powers intent on total control of America must first reduce our citizens to helplessness through firearm confiscation and financial devastation. The Federal Reserve Board has been working tirelessly to insure the complete collapse of the American Dollar by the end of 2013. In this manner, the FRB reduces the majority of Americans to a quivering mass of hysteria, willing to trade the American Birthright of Liberty for the light chains of oppression and financial security.

It is easier to destroy the economy than it is to wrestle weapons away from Patriots however. People intrinsically understand they must protect themselves. Wise people understand protection is best achieved through superior firepower! But, the tireless purveyors of oppression understand fear is as good a tool for gun confiscation as it is for other forms of social manipulation. This is the motivation behind the medias’ and politicians’ ghoulish obsession with using tragedy for firearm confiscation. It generates fear that overrides logic.

While those intent on the enslavement of America pursue their tactics of fear to achieve their agenda, it is repeated by clueless individuals simply parroting what they think has made common sense. While there will be no stopping the media and politicians from spreading their ghoulish fear, and the individuals who believe them usually suspend logic to maintain their own liberal views, logic may reach some, and will at least anger the rest. I suggest systematic logic applied to the ghoulish fear mongering as a way to push back.

The first response to firearm confiscation must be statistics. The prime example is our nation’s capital itself. Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws on the books in America, yet it experiences more firearm deaths per capita than even the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. During the same 10 year period statistics were tabulated, the firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. was over six times higher than the average for the rest of the United States. D.C.’s death rate by guns was over 21 times higher than American Soldiers’ deaths during the same time period in the combat zone!

Here are the statistical breakdowns:

Washington, D.C. – 33.9/100,000
National average – 5.45/100,000
Iraq/Afghanistan – 1.59/100,000

It is quite evident laws restricting the possession of weapons does not reduce the number of deaths using firearms, as proven by Washington, D.C.’s statistics. However, one logical conclusion from these statistics would be the more firearms being used legally, the fewer deaths resulting from firearms. When presented with statistical facts, most proponents of firearm confiscation will ignore the facts and change the subject. This is usually accomplished using an emotional appeal to a hypothetical and tragic case, (hypothetical because no laws on the books stop any homicides committed with firearms, and more laws won’t change that). While proponents of oppression use this tactic to distract from their vacuous argument, it can be used to illustrate the illogic of their conclusions. A perfect example is deaths resulting from drinking and driving.

In the United States, drunk-drivers kill about 25,000 people each year. By comparison, there are about 8,000 homicides using firearms each year. So, you are over three times more likely to be killed by a drunk-driver than you are to be murdered using a firearm. But, if you take into account most murders are committed among the lawless criminal class, or as a result of the breakdown in societal norms for interpersonal relationships, your chances can improve dramatically. If you are not a criminal, and if you are in a home with a socially acceptable and stable romantic relationship, you have almost no chance of being murdered with a firearm. However, you still run the same chance of being randomly killed by a drunk driver!

If the same logic that dictates the confiscation of firearms to reduce gun deaths is applied to reducing drunk-driving deaths, the result must be the same – confiscation of the weapon used in the killing. If firearm homicides are reduced by the confiscation of firearms, drunk-driving deaths are reduced by the confiscation of vehicles and alcohol. Since deaths resulting from drunk-driving are over three times more prevalent than homicides committed with firearms, those who wish to confiscate firearms must be over three times more vocal and adamant about the confiscation of vehicles and alcohol. That would be the logical result.

So, when confronted by someone advocating firearm confiscation, ask them directly if their view is based on the logical application of statistics, or the political, (and unconstitutional), opinion no one should be allowed to have firearms. If they answer statistics, give them the statistics. At which point they will say, “I don’t believe your statistics. You just made those up.” To which you reply, “Then show me your statistics supporting your view.” They can’t because they are not interested in statistics, logic, or fact, and statistics supporting firearm confiscation do not legitimately exist.

While we can win the argument based on statistics, logic, and facts, this will do nothing to dissuade the continued push to confiscate firearms. Unfortunately, only the possession of firearms is a real deterrent to the confiscation of firearms.