“Gun Controllers: It’s Like They Have an Addiction!”

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5379

Posted by Howard Nemerov
Saturday, December 20, 2003

Editor’s Note–Writer Howard Nemerov, a student of the Gun Control Movement, has also studied Alcoholics, and he marvels at the similarity between those addicted to alcohol and those craving to rid society of its guns. He declares that Gun Control, like Alcoholism, results in insane behavior. He makes his tongue-in-cheek–although serious–case below, and includes corroborating footnotes at the end.

~~o~~

In this article, we will look at the behavioral similarities between alcoholism and gun control. The following description is from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism web site.(1)

Alcoholism, also known as alcohol dependence, is a disease that includes the following four symptoms:

1. Craving–A strong need, or urge, to drink.
2. Loss of control–Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
3. Physical dependence–Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
4. Tolerance–The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to get “high.”

Now let us look at each of these four points in order to better understand the mind-set of the dedicated gun controller.

Craving–A Strong Need, or Urge, to Ban Guns.

Almost every day you can find another article demanding more gun control. (2)

Recommendations are paraded before us as being ”common sense” methods to reduce crime, even though the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently came out with a study concluding that they could find no reliable beneficial link between previous ”common sense” methods such as waiting periods or background checks and reduced crime.(3)

In March, 1999, the National Institute of Justice came out with a report called ”Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996.” One interesting conclusion: ”The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”

So how has this affected gun controllers, after 35 years of ever increasing restrictions and ”common sense” laws that only seem to affect the law-abiding citizen’s access to firearms?

This has not satisfied gun control groups like The Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence or Violence Policy Center (VPC). According to them, after 20,000 gun control laws have been passed, not enough has been done; they crave more gun control.

The Brady Bunch continues to develop programs, such as one designed to help doctors invade the privacy of their patients and ”to talk with patients/clients and their families about the dangers of keeping a gun in the home.” The VPC home page reads like the cover of the National Enquirer, proclaiming ”50 Caliber Sniper Rifles That Can Destroy an Aircraft Easier to Buy Than Handguns,” even though there is not one documented case where such a gun was used in such a crime in this country. The need here is to make a case that it is sensible to ban yet another gun.

Loss of control–Not being able to stop gun banning once it has begun.

England and Australia, instituted draconian gun bans in the mid-1990s. The new laws were hailed as the dawn of a bright new day, when people would be safer. But crime went up in both countries, and law-abiding people were less safe.(4,5) The response of the politicians and police? They announced even more gun control measures, even though guns have already been banned.

In our country, we see the same cast of gun-control characters left over from the Clinton era. These people are out of touch with reality and out of control. Let’s name a few.

Diane Feinstein (who said if she had the votes in 1994, she would have rounded up all our guns) wants to renew and expand the Clinton gun ban, even though no proof exists it has done any good.

Frank Lautenberg wants to restrict your ability to buy firearms based upon the terrorist threat level determined by Homeland Security; the higher the level the more restrictive, up to and including suspending your right to buy any firearm. He claims the proposal would close ”loopholes” in current gun laws ”that allow terrorists to access weapons and explosives inside our borders.” (6) Of course, he never explains why terrorists would travel over here to purchase hunting rifles and pistols, about the only things available to folks here, when they can travel to arms bazaars already in the Middle East and buy machine guns, surface-to-air missiles, explosives, artillery, etc. none of which the average citizen can purchase in this country.

Charles Schumer, comrade in disarmament with Feinstein, helped write the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. He wants the federal government to keep permanent records of all guns you purchased. This is firearms registration. In every country that instituted government registration of firearms, this was a prelude to confiscation, and in most cases led to curtailment of civil rights. There is a picture of him shooting a banned firearm, smiling, and not wearing eye protection, a banishment offense at a shooting range, even though normally he wears glasses. (7)

As an interesting aside to demonstrate that gun control, like alcoholism, results in insane behavior, all three voted no on an amendment for S.254 that would have placed heavier penalties for the illegal transfer of firearms, and for certain drug violations. (8) This continues the fine tradition begun by ex-President Clinton. In his final days in office, he pardoned drug dealers, people most likely to use firearms in a violent manner. (9) Drug dealers don’t need legal access to firearms; they simply use their existing smuggling channels. But law-abiding citizens need to be disarmed to make society safer.

This shows the absolute loss of any guiding compass, consistent with the complete loss of control that accompanies the addiction of gun control. This twisted psychology is why gun controllers, who have no compassion for you and no consideration for your civil rights, bend over backwards to be compassionate and forgiving to criminals whose lives have demonstrated a complete lack of compassion towards you. They relate to criminals because deep down inside they recognize the empathetic link of shared insanity.

Physical dependence–Withdrawal symptoms after stopping gun control.

Over the last few years, every anti-gun editorial I have read concerning Concealed Carry laws about to be passed in a new state, carry the same thread of hysteria. The state will become the ”wild west.” Gun battles will erupt over parking spaces at the mall and traffic accidents. Blood will run in the streets. In thrall to their disease, they seem to forget that the very same claims have been proclaimed but never materialized in over 30 preceding states. This must really make the gun controllers suffer from anxiety and nausea, to see their carefully crafted hallucinations exposed in the light of truth again, and again, and again?

This is indicative of the withdrawal symptoms of gun controllers, when faced with a loss of gun control. Yes, there are many more guns on the streets, but a study of the FBI Uniform Crime data shows significantly lower crime rates in shall-issue states.

Such a loss of gun control results in more insane behavior, as withdrawal symptoms increase. The Violence Policy Center is adept at coming out with articles of junk science attempting to show that ”shall-issue states” are more violent, contrary to FBI Crime data. (10) In addiction, the addicts will do anything to protect their drug of choice, even if it means other people will suffer.

Other symptoms of withdrawal include denial and projection. An alcoholic will blame his wife, boss, traffic, president, or anything and anybody for the unhappy state of his life. Anything is acceptable, as long as there is no personal responsibility, and therefore no reason to quit.

Those who crave gun control are in denial. They blindly believe that the problem of violence resides in society at large or in an inanimate object. On one hand, they believe that people are all good, and that in the presence of guns, a good person will be magically transformed into a murdering maniac. Yet in a curious schizophrenic split of the mind, they also believe that people are bad, that they are incompetent to handle a tool with fewer operating mechanisms than a car, which kills about 15 times as many children a year in accidents. They believe that people are not to be trusted with guns.

Fracturing their minds into thirds, they also believe that the government, which is made up of the very same people, somehow can be trusted; that somehow private citizens, who are incompetent and untrustworthy, magically transforms when they join the government, military, or police department.

Then there is the projection aspect of addiction. The addict believes that since he is the blameless victim, any conflict in his life is the doing of others. Being morally superior, the addict does not see a need to engage in reasonable discourse about any subject, because he knows he is already right, and anybody who disagrees with him is wrong.

When I read that a columnist from the Chicago Sun Times claims that studies show that most people do not want anybody to carry concealed weapons, I wrote her asking for copies of the research she pretends to quote. Her only response was to say we must agree to disagree on this matter. (This is also the standard response from my supposed representatives in Washington.)

Since she is in denial about her addiction, and must project out her own failings to ground her convictions in common sense and fact, and she is the morally righteous victim here, there is no need to engage me as a reasonable person. By the very nature of my disagreeing, I become a bad person and am not worthy of her consideration. Since she risked nothing, she comfortably maintains her delusional state.

Tolerance–The need for greater amounts of gun control

As we have already seen, after 20,000 gun laws in the U.S., the gun controller needs more. A few more brief examples will highlight this aspect of the disease.
England has been considering banning replica guns. (11) The United Nations wants a global gun ban. (12) The New York City Council wants to ban water guns. (13) An Annapolis, Maryland, alderwoman wants to ban toy guns. (14) These examples serve to show the insane need for more, regardless of what reality dictates is needful, and regardless of the consequences.

Conclusion

Unfortunately for the deluded gun controller, history shows one consistent fact: loss of civil rights follows civilian disarmament. In New South Wales, Australia, Premiere Bob Carr is pushing for revocation of double jeopardy. (15) Britain is looking into the same possibility. (16) Remember that these two countries are the most recent to create a complete ban on civilian firearm ownership.

We have other, more terrifying, examples from the 20th Century. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and many other despots first made sure the people were disarmed. Then they began to slaughter the very people that national leaders are supposed to protect, to the tune of tens of millions; far more than all the gun-related deaths in the history of the United States.

Addiction kills, usually harming those around the addict, much like a drunk driver. Do you want to subject your freedom and safety to an uncontrolled addict? Is it reasonable to placate persons who are trying to convince you that their demands are reasonable, when they want everything from you and promise nothing in return? (17) The addicts are users. This means they use people, too, to get what they want.

Do you want people who are inconsiderate of others, lacking in personal responsibility, incompetent, untrustworthy, and in denial about their own lives, to determine the structure of society? Are they really qualified to make decisions that will have a powerful impact on our basic freedoms, acknowledged by the Constitution as being granted us by God, and inviolate by a government of people?

Are you willing to die because gun control addicts needs to satisfy their insane, destructive habit?

You need to confront these people and create consequences for continued addictive behavior. This is called intervention. The addicts must be brought up short to face themselves. Being nice to them only enables them to continue feeling justified, and prolongs the disease. Conversely, giving them ”tough love” is the only way to help them begin their recovery. Be firm but compassionate, because they are sick.

————————————-

Footnotes

(1) http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/question2

(2) Keep and Bear Arms web site is a good source for current events as they affect gun rights. https://www.keepandbeararms.com/default.asp

(3) First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, November, 2002.

(4) Handgun crime rises by 46 per cent, Times Online, January 9, 2003

(5) Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey. Shows that Australia and England now rank at the top in overall victimization, burglary, sexual assault, and assault.

(6) Lautenberg Gun Control Bill Compared to Nazi Policies, The Nation April 30, 2003.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200304%5CNAT20030430e.html

(7) http://vikingphoenix.com/public/gchof/schumer.htm

(8) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00254:@@@D&summ2=m&

“Title IX: Enhanced Penalties – Amends the Brady Act to provide for enhanced penalties for knowingly violating prohibitions against making false statements, or exhibiting false or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale or other disposition of a firearm or ammunition, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that the other person will possess, discharge, or otherwise use the firearm in the commission of a violent felony. (Sec. 902) Increases penalties under: (1) the Brady Act with respect to stolen firearms, and crimes involving firearms; and (2) CSA for distributing drugs to minors, and for drug trafficking in or near a school or other protected location.”

(9) Bill Pardoned Drug Dealer Before. Newsmax, March 7, 2001.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/7/01143.shtml

(10) Violence Policy Center press releases. http://www.vpc.org/pressndx.htm

(11) Replica gun ban ‘shelved’. BBC News Service, October 2, 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2291405.stm

(12) UN Wants Global Gun Ban. Newsmax, April 27, 2001.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml

(13) Guns for Tots. The Daily Standard, January 31, 2003.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/188aqazu.asp

(14) Annapolis lawmaker puts toy guns in cross hairs. The Washington Times, June 17, 2003. http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030617-114826-6331r.htm

(15) Carr bid to scrap law on double jeopardy. Sydney Morning Herald, February 9, 2003. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044579990924.html

(16) Britain to scrap double jeopardy? BBC News, March 6, 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1204443.stm

(17) http://www.copcrimes.com/courtcases.htm
Lists court decisions showing the police do not have any obligation to protect any individual person from harm.

Howard Nemerov receives e-mail at: [email protected]