Advocating For Gun Control Is Necessarily Irrational Or Evil — But It Can Also Be Both


I don’t know how to write this without sounding judgmental of those to whom it applies, and that is probably because those people are deserving of our judgment. Mind you, I am not speaking of judgment in the sense of their salvation: that is a matter between them and God and Scripture cautions us against making such a mistake. But I am speaking of judgment as to their mental faculties and their ability to recognize objective reality – or, maybe more to the point, their willful refusal to use and recognize the same. So, if I seem hostile toward those about whom I now write, it is because I am, and because they deserve to be treated with hostility and contempt. They are enemies to the individual rights and liberties of all mankind.

We live in a world of causality. By that, I mean we live in a world where nothing happens without a cause, or a force or action that makes it happen. What’s more, all causes are the result of an exercise of free will. Yes, all causes come about because of free will. Allow me to illustrate.

If you are walking down a path and you trip and fall and you hit your head on a rock and die, what caused your death? Was it the rock? No, not directly. The rock was just the instrument by which the lethal damage was inflicted upon you. Was it the fall? Again, no, your fall did not cause your death, it only lead to your head hitting the rock, which then damaged your body to the point of death. Ultimately, the cause of your death was your decision to walk down that path. Had it not been for you making and acting on that decision – exercising your free will – you would not have tripped, so your head would never hit the rock and you would not have died. This same reasoning applies to everything that happens in this universe – even guns.

The laws of causality are one of the many laws that govern our universe. They are as real and as knowable as the laws governing gravity, or inertia. They cannot be changed, nor can they be ignored. And, when we do ignore them, the same universal laws governing causality will eventually step in to right the imbalance we have caused by attempting to ignore them. Again, an example can be found in the laws of gravity. If you tell yourself that the laws of gravity does not apply to you and you step off a 50 story building, the laws of gravity will correct your mistake. Now, you may think that the only law immediately in play here is that governing gravity – and you’d be wrong. The laws governing causality are equally in play at the same time. You stepped of a building, which was an act of free will, and as a result, you suffered the consequences of gravity. It is really the same interplay in my first example where you fell and hit your head on a rock.

Now, apply this to the issue of gun control. The gun is an inanimate object, it possesses no free will of its own. It requires a cause – or act of free will – before it can do anything. Just as a hammer cannot drive a nail until acted upon by a force of free will, neither can a gun do anything until acted upon by a similar force. What’s more, what the gun does in terms of a good/bad value judgment will depend entirely on the intent of the free will which acts upon it. If that will is malevolent, then the gun could be directed to inflict great harm. But it still would not be the cause of that harm. The cause would be the will directing it. Likewise, if the will directing the gun is benevolent, then the gun may be directed to prevent harm. Still, it was not the gun that prevents the harm; it is the will directing the gun.

Therefore, anyone who ascribes the qualities of free will to an inanimate object is acting in an irrational manner because that person is acting in direct contradiction to the set laws which govern this world. In essence, that person is declaring themselves to be a god; to be above, outside of this universe and, therefore, not subject to them. For this would be the only way someone could possibly say that gravity does not apply and then proceed to prove it by stepping off a 50 story building and not falling to earth. Unless the person who does this can control the laws governing gravity and alter their application such that he/she does not fall, then that person will fall. To believe and act otherwise is to act irrationally. And, implicit in this is the equal truth that to believe and act as though you are a god is equally irrational because the same laws governing this universe dictate that nothing within this universe can possibly become over it.

So, what are we to make of those people who blame guns for the violence in our society? Well, the conclusions are simple. They are either irrational, in which case we need to give serious consideration to locking them up for their own good and the good of society (yea, I am serious about this. Most mass murders are the result of an irrational mind, and those who have convinced themselves that the inanimate possesses free will are potentially as dangerous to society as any mass murderer has ever been). Or, if they are not irrational, then they must be hiding an ulterior motive and only using the emotion of the moment to attack the ownership of guns. Personally, I think the majority of people who are advocating gun control have actually lost touch with reality. They have simply allowed their emotions to overcome their reason. In most cases, this is the result of fear. But make no mistake: anyone who loses control of their reasoning ability is acting irrationally – even if only momentarily. On the other hand, those who claim leadership roles in our society who also advocate for gun control are doing so for ulterior reasons. They seek to disarm this nation so that they may more easily control it – period!

Those who are simply afraid have my understanding but not my sympathy. If you cannot gain control of your emotions and reassert your reason, then you are little more than an animal acting on instinct. In other words, you have actively chosen to remain irrational. At that point, you cease to be capable of acting as a self-governing citizen of a free society, in which case, society has just cause to consider you a threat.

However, those who would intentionally seize upon a tragedy to manipulate and prolong the fears of society so they can disarm that society are evil. These are the people to whom I am openly hostile. They are not irrational; they act with clear purpose and intent and that purpose and intent is to remove society’s ability to defend its rights and liberty. This makes these people the enemy of mankind’s freedom and we should be openly hostile to them at every turn – even to the point of being ready to defend ourselves from them, because the right of self-defense is a natural right. In fact, it is the natural right upon which our founding fathers based their authority to revolt against the Crown. And that, my dear friend, is why the 2nd Amendment was actually included in the Bill of Rights: not to provide you the right to hunt or sport shoot, not even to guarantee your right to defend yourself against a robber or rapist: but to defend yourself and society against the encroachment of government tyranny.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect you from the very people who now seek to take your weapons away.


Those who do not understand this do not understand liberty.  And those who would ignore the rights of others in a personal pursuit of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

16 thoughts on “Advocating For Gun Control Is Necessarily Irrational Or Evil — But It Can Also Be Both

  1. I don’t necessarily “hate” the people who are advocating gun control. (Nor do I really think they’re just trying to take over the country) I just think they are responding incorrectly.

    I think there are some reasonable restrictions to be had; however, I think people go way too far in blaming the guns for these occurrences. Connecticut was already the 4th-toughest state on gun control. California, the 1st, just had a shooting where a man shot 40 rounds at a mall. Colorado, Virginia, they’re all on the “tough” side of states on the issue of gun-control. Some may say there are too few occurrences to indicate a pattern, but it sure doesn’t indicate a pattern of violence in “gun-rights” states.

    • consideragain,

      Please read my latest post. I DO believe those LEADERS advocating for gun control seek to control this nation. This is an historic patten we are in, and it always results in tyranny. There are ample examples of safe societies where guns are much more prevalent than ours (Switzerland, for one) and where crime rates are much lower as a result. So, using history as my guide, I can see but one logical conclusion for the gun control arguments.

  2. I don’t disagree as much if you’re only discussing leaders. Congressmen like Durbin who say “We might have a chance because of this tragedy” or we need to “exploit” this killing for example. I give the general public more the benefit of the doubt, but you are right – people will continue to use this for advantage. I think you and I mostly agree on the gun-control issue. But I’ve realized over the years of political debate that no one listens to you if you insult them.

    As for crime rates, their side always has countries to quote too – I think comparing countries with completely different cultures and trying to find a trend based on one factor will be inconclusive either way.

    • consideragain,

      If you will note, I gave an allowance for the majority of people to be acting out of a momentary irrationality driven by fear. I think you’ll find I am pretty consistent in my differentiation between the duped and the dupers — but that does NOT mean the duped are entitled to a free pass At some point, if they remain duped long enough — especially if others have tried to help them see the truth — they become the dupers, themselves. 🙂

      • “At some point, if they remain duped long enough — especially if others have tried to help them see the truth — they become the dupers, themselves.”

        True! I’m not trying to criticize – I really did enjoy the post! (And I’m following your blog now!)

        • Consideragain,

          I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to sound defensive or as though I was attacking you. I’ve been told my writing style takes some time to get used to. I’m actually being urged (pushed is more accurate) to start making video clips so you guys can see that I am speaking in a very humble voice and with a sincere demeanor. I suppose it may be time to listen to wiser counsel, I just HATE cameras 🙂

  3. Very Good Post Joe.

    There is also every indication that Guns in the hands of responsible Citizens help mitigate the severity of the violence perpetrated by these Shooters.

    The AP is reporting that Lanza shot himself as the Police closed in. In other words as people with Guns were close to confronting him.
    In a related story in the recent Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, a man with a CHL and a gun may have stopped that shooter from inflicting more damage. He didn’t discharge his weapon because there were innocents behind the Shooter but after the Shooter spotted him….the next shot was the Shooter killing himself, similar to Lanza….

    As with the Israeli Teachers who are trained to use Weapons defensively, it seems clear that armed citizens can and do have a beneficial effect.

    • Thanks, Don.

      What you say is true. We just had the 2 year anniversary of the school board shooting here in Panama City. Mike Jones, the school safety officer who stopped the shooter, is in my Sunday school class. Most people credit him with killing the shooter in this incident, but he didn’t. Once faced with another armed DEFENDER OF THE INNOCENT, the shooter killed himself — just as in so many other such incidents.

      • I had not known of this incident…thanks.

        There should be a Website Called “The Truth about CHL and Defence of Innocents” or somesuch…..with lists and links about the prevention and stopping of crimes by Armed and trained Civilians !

        • They can’t do that. If they allowed it, then the evidence would be so overwhelmingly in FAVOR of OPEN CARRY that even the media couldn’t put an “anti-gun” spin on it. It would become “self-evident” 😉

              • Well, your post brought to my mind an early scene in this show. In an opening scene, they are children and Edward, (the lead) on a bet, confronts a witch who allows them to see how they will die. It just makes me think that if you had that knowlege; would you do anything differently? Would it then change anything? I know I’m outta left field again….it was just all that talk on rocks and paths….

                It’s really a beautiful show. It’s more a show on love for family and others…….as told in a tall tale, er, through a big fish.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.