“POSITIVE THINKING” AND GUN CONTROL
“Close your eyes and imagine a magical place where everyone is safe and wishes really do come true? Such is the world as seen by many anti-gun activists.”

ULTIMATELY, there is only one basis for gun-control philosophy. With no basis in national statistics, the current state of society or the availability of guns to the criminal element, it is built on the same utopian simplemindedness as hard-core pacifism: “positive thinking.” Already becoming a more and more frequent aspect of philosophical and religious deviancy, this dangerous mind set upholds the notion that wishful thinking will bring about beneficial results-evidence of past experience and statistics not withstanding.

Traditional gun-control proponents will not call it that, but “positive thinking” is at the root of their disposition. With unbridled optimism, they imagine that by disarming as much of the public as possible-unavoidably only that portion of the population which is both law-abiding in the first place and willing to give up their rights to remain law-abiding-they will reduce the misuse of firearms.

Stated empirically, the formula almost seems to make sense: less guns, less misuse. What gun-control advocates fail to consider or even acknowledge is:

(1 ) The number of guns in the hands of the misusers will change very little.

(2) The elimination of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will allow for more misuse by the rest of society.

These, by the way, are the same mistakes in logic made by pacifists concerning the military: less military activity, less death. Ironically, there will be no less military activity by other rations and more vulnerability of the country to aggressive action because of a weakened defensive capability and even a weakened status as perceived by other nations. Both groups stubbornly refuse to extend their vision and logic that far.

“Positive thinking,” in this sense, is about the same as refusing to take preventive health measures like exercise and good nutrition because of the immediate side effects of hard-work exhaustion and health-food monotony. This is especially applicable to pacifism. Its proponents would sacrifice an entire nation for the safety of relatively few soldiers.

Relating this same argument to gun control, there may be fewer accidental deaths and crimes of passion. But how much more will crimes increase against the general society, which cannot defend itself individually against mischief makers or as a civilian militia against a hostile government takeover? Even gun control could save some individual lives (and the statistical data here would say otherwise), is it worth the cost to our national security and a possible future that may affect millions of lives?

In an emotional plea for peace and an end to violence, the gun-control philosophers fail to make a rational extension of their logic in the face of harsh reality. By adamantly maintaining an emotional stance on the issue, they willingly give up our freedom, both individually and as a nation. The Gulf War protesters attempted to do the same but fortunately didn’t prevail. The frightening thing, though, is that sensationalist crowds like these do influence our political leaders, and eventually these people may win. No matter how much one wants peace, and no matter how simple a solution sounds, the realities have to be dealt with or all such efforts are in vain.

Positive thinking will NOT bring peace. Fringe groups concerned about global peace, or starvation in Third World nations-which meditate, chant, hum or play with coloured crystals in an effort to metaphysically bring about relief-can at least point to the fact that relief has been provided (whether it had anything to do with their efforts or not).

But the gun-control advocates don’t even have that to back them up, for the statistics bear witness against them! I saw a bumper sticker that read, “Where has a gun control law ever reduced crime?” Is it a coincidence that of our nation’s states, which has the tightest gun-control laws also has the highest murder rates? The same applies to the United States.

Ironically, both sides of the gun debate claim to have the same goal: reduction of crime and violence. In spite of what the antis like to imply, we do not like war or violence or gun-related homicide any more than they do. We simply realize that eliminating our defence will not decrease violent crime, but rather will only serve to increase it.

Isn’t it obvious that the only ones who will feel safer without guns are those who don’t like them or have them to begin with and thus cannot have a reduced defensive capability? Are gun owners really expected to feel safer after giving them up?

Finally, are we so naive as to believe that the criminals are going to willingly give up their weapons for the sake of being law-abiding? These are the basic questions “positive thinking” refuses to answer! Do we have a right to own firearms? Yes. Do firearms have a place in civilized society and a place in our heritage? Definitely.

Remember it is a simple as this; That most people who are against guns just don’t like them.

“Positive thinking” about gun control is a joke, just as positive thinking about criminals magically disappearing from our streets is a joke. It’s simply never going to happen. Taking the right to own firearms away from the law-abiding public is foolishly naive and “positive thinking” in its worst form.