"The 'magic' of guns is that they are not magic. Despite the legend and lore of firearms, they just a subset of weapons. At appropriate distances, an assegai or a fougasse or a longbow would work just as well as a revolver or a rifle. What makes firearms, especially the handguns and other hand-held small arms is their defensive nature.
It is seldom practical to defend an individual with land mines because they don't move with the person being protected. Hand grenades are not sufficiently directional in their effect. A sword or an ax or a spear require getting closer to the threat for effect precisely when retreat would be advised for de-escalation. A crossbows is similar enough to a single-shot firearm and regulated in most jurisdictions for the same reason.
Confiscation of guns and restrictions on their use all have the effect of reducing safety of those affected. They have a secondary effect described long ago by Niccolo Machiavelli: "among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible". Lest you think I am overstating the effect, how do TSA agents treat those they disarm? Guns as the defensive subset of personal weapons are a major component of liberty. It is still possible to be dependent while armed, but independence without arms is impossible.
Back to the magic of firearms. Gun owners are as mortal as everyone else, they mostly survive by not motivating others to kill them. Being armed is an edge, not a guarantee of surviving a well-planned attack by motivated enemy. Gun control by its very nature -- removal of rights and property -- breeds motivated enemies. They may lack defensive weapons but the offensive types -- from a sharp stick to remote-controlled bomb and everything in between -- are even harder to eradicate. Improvised offensive weapons with strong motivation to use them is what keeps armies from winning against insurgents. The same could trouble bureaucrats and politicians who commute in less well armored vehicles than M1A Abrams."
Oleg Volk
It is seldom practical to defend an individual with land mines because they don't move with the person being protected. Hand grenades are not sufficiently directional in their effect. A sword or an ax or a spear require getting closer to the threat for effect precisely when retreat would be advised for de-escalation. A crossbows is similar enough to a single-shot firearm and regulated in most jurisdictions for the same reason.
Confiscation of guns and restrictions on their use all have the effect of reducing safety of those affected. They have a secondary effect described long ago by Niccolo Machiavelli: "among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible". Lest you think I am overstating the effect, how do TSA agents treat those they disarm? Guns as the defensive subset of personal weapons are a major component of liberty. It is still possible to be dependent while armed, but independence without arms is impossible.
Back to the magic of firearms. Gun owners are as mortal as everyone else, they mostly survive by not motivating others to kill them. Being armed is an edge, not a guarantee of surviving a well-planned attack by motivated enemy. Gun control by its very nature -- removal of rights and property -- breeds motivated enemies. They may lack defensive weapons but the offensive types -- from a sharp stick to remote-controlled bomb and everything in between -- are even harder to eradicate. Improvised offensive weapons with strong motivation to use them is what keeps armies from winning against insurgents. The same could trouble bureaucrats and politicians who commute in less well armored vehicles than M1A Abrams."
Oleg Volk
