Unreasonable Gun Safety Questions From Unreasonable People

There is a group (probably several groups) that are pushing the, "Big 10 Gun Safety Measures" campaign. I won't link to their sites and give them more hits.  Their idea is to present the following 10 questions to political candidates, and then use the responses to determine whether or not the candidate will get your vote.

For those of you that have the ability to think, in anti-gun speak, "Gun Safety Measures" means figuring out ways to take guns away from everyone but government employees.

Now, I'm not a candidate, and will never be one, but I want to respond to the questions as though I were.

1.  Do you support universal background checks, including in private sales? If not, why not?

No.  Background checks do nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring and using guns.  And that's who we're worried about, right?  Good, decent Americans - the people submitting to the checks - have no intention of breaking the law.  Bad, evil Americans - the people NOT submitting to the checks - use the guns for criminal purposes.  The checks are nothing more than an exercise in, "feel good politics".

2.  Do you support an assault weapons ban? If not, why not?

No.  Because the term itself is only intended to scare and intimidate the uninformed.  Can you first define, "assault weapon" for me?  In California, for instance, if you take any kind of rifle - ANY kind - and add a collapsible stock and fore stock grip, that previously approved rifle is somehow transformed into an illegal assault rifle.  Shoots the same, loads the same, does everything the same.... it only LOOKS different.  Why would I want to ban that?

The common cry of the gun grabbers is that, "Assault rifles are only used for killing, not for self-defense."  OK, then why are they issued to the local police?  Are you saying you're OK with the police being nothing more than killing machines?

3.  Do you support mandatory child safety locks on all guns? If not, why not?

No.  Because it is just more futile, "feel good politics".   Try this on:  You have a single mom who owns a gun for self-defense.  She's got kids under 18 living in the home.  For whatever reason, the police come to her home, and see a pistol without a lock.  In your world, a crime has been committed and the single mom MUST be hauled off and jailed.  The children must be taken from the home.

In your eyes, this is a good thing?

Here's what I do support:  In homes with a likelihood of having children under the age of 18, if a child is harmed, or if a child harms another person with a gun owned by the adult occupant, that adult is held responsible for the actions or injuries of the child.

It's just like owning an automobile - if your child takes your keys for a joy-ride and kills 3 children playing in the street, you are responsible for the conduct of your child.

This places the onus of education and security on the adult, as it should be.  The government telling you how to secure your property is intrusive, and assumes the government knows your family better than you do.

4.  Do you support mandatory safe gun storage laws, particularly if a household contains a minor or person adjudicated mentally ill? If not, why not?

No.  See above.

5.  Do you support repealing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents victims from holding the gun industry to account? If not, why not?

No.  Why would you feel it is appropriate for a consumer to be able to sue a company when their product did not fail?  Do you support the ability of a family to sue, say GM or Ford, when a person with, "reckless disregard for human life" purposely and maliciously runs over people on a sidewalk?  Sounds kind of crazy, doesn't it?

It is the user of the product that must be held accountable, not the maker of the inanimate object itself.

Cars don't kill people.  People kill people.

6.  Do you support limiting magazine sizes to ensure law enforcement are not outgunned? If not, why not?

No.  Police departments provide their officers with the largest possible magazines for what purpose?  To give them the greatest possibility of making it out alive when encountering a life-threatening situation.

I want that same advantage when I protect my life, and the lives around me.  The life of a police officer is not more valuable than any other life.  If you disagree, ask a close family member that if a choice had to be made over whose life were to be lost to a crazed shooter - your life or the life of a police officer - which would they choose?

All life is equally precious, be it the life of a politician, a public servant or a burger-flipper at McDonalds.  All have the equal right to defend their life as vigorously as possible.

7.  Do you support mandatory duty of states to report persons with mental health issues to the Federal background check system? If not, why not?

No.  Because it's unconstitutional.  With few exceptions in the Constitution, the federal government not granted the right to tell a state how to run its affairs.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The tenth amendment is quite clear on this subject.

More directly, though, is the government's ability to deem someone as, "mentally ill" and subsequently strip them of many of their rights.  I recently became aware of a mental health affliction called, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or ODD.  When I first heard the term - ODD - I assumed it was an Onion.com parody.

Instead, it was recently added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) - the bible of the psychiatric industry.

ODD is defined as follows, "Oppositional defiant disorder is a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures."

You're considered mentally ill because you disobey and are hostile towards authority?!  Apparently, there are a lot of mentally ill Americans out there.  I was under the impression that that's part of what makes us Americans - you know, that whole, "redress of grievances" deal.

8.  Do you support mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners? If not, why not?

No.  Because the majority of gun crime and violence is perpetrated by criminals.  Criminals who won't be getting gun insurance.  This is once again a proposal to impose costs and requirement on good, decent gun owners.

Our current liability laws allow victims to sue offenders for damages.  How many people each year are accidentally injured by firearms possessed by non-criminals?  It's an incredibly small percentage of our 300+ million citizens.  This is a proposal in search of a problem.

And going back to our automobile analogy, owning and possessing a gun is a right guaranteed by the second amendment.  There is no such amendment for owning and driving a car, so it is well within the rights of a state (and not the federal government) to impose liability insurance controls.

This is nothing more than another attempt by gun grabbers to marginalize and penalize good, decent gun-owning Americans.

9.  Do you support mandatory reporting by gun owners of lost or stolen guns? If not, why not?

No.  Why would you think it's a good idea to further penalize a victim of a lost or stolen gun?  If it's lost, the owner obviously does not know it's missing.  Are you suggesting that they be put in jail over something of which they have no knowledge?

Instead, I would ask you, "What benefit is there to society to criminalizing a victim of a crime or unknown act?"

Common sense tells us that a criminal won't be reporting his stolen guns, because they were likely obtained... as stolen guns.  A good citizen will report the crime because they want their goods recovered.

Again, this is nothing more than another attempt by gun grabbers to marginalize and penalize good, decent gun-owning Americans.

10.  Do you support Smart Gun technology to ensure only approved adults can fire a weapon, as soon as the technology is state-of-the-art? If not, why not?

No.  Because I don't want to place my life in the hands of some battery manufacturer or on the technology company that guarantees my biometric information is correct.

The primary reason I own guns is for self-defense, and the defense of others.  Hunting, plinking, and competing are just gravy.  I need them to work each and every time I pick them up.  They need to work whether the batteries are charged or not, whether my bleeding hand obscures the biometric reader or not, and whether the "proven technology" actually operates as promised.

If I believe an advancement in technology will further my goal of providing for my self-defense, I'll use it.  Laser grips, for instance, are a great thing.  But the gun still works even if the laser does not.

Here's a scenario for you:  I get a frantic call from you, and the line suddenly goes dead.  I enter your house through the back gate.  I peer in the window and see you on the floor, bleeding profusely from the head.  You've become yet another victim of a home invasion.

Your wife is screaming as three men take turns raping her.  I go around to the side of your house, sneak into your home office, and grab your government-approved Smart Gun.  I go back into the rape room, point the gun at the intruders.  The gun goes click, but doesn't go bang.

Apparently, I wasn't on your approved user list.

You'll probably die from your injuries, I'll probably die after being attacked by the 3 intruders (since I can't use the gun to defend myself) and your wife is probably wishing she were dead.

How's that technology working out for you?

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com