NRA President David Keene Rejects White House Gun Control Approach

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june13/keene_01-15.html

Here one point of view. We all agree that we cannot fully limit number criminals and mentally ill who will have at some point have access to guns. In fact, well meaning citizens may be pushed to do criminal activity and they may become mentally ill, due to old age for example (Alzheimer, dementia, etc.). Thus, full prevention is impossible.

The idea of NRA is to put guards in schools, other public places, and basically give more guns to "good people". But because there will always be subset of future criminals and mentally ill in the pool of "good people", by increasing ownership we increase number of people who can potentially be dangerous with guns. This in turn means that we need more people having guns to protect against increased future threats. That will again increases the pool and increases the chances of the future criminals and/or mentally ill to have access to guns, and so on and so forth. In the end everybody should really own the gun and police force should become irrelevant, except for serving as guards for hire.

When everybody has a gun and police force is irrelevant, there is no force that can protect property rights for individuals. Thus, either we militarize society to make sure there is at least one force that is stronger than any individual, or we have to accept lawlessness in the form of "law of the gun" - who has better weapon or successfully shots first is right. Neither option is desirable. The former defeats the purpose of having guns in the first place, and second brings less security.

Finally, because we can never catch up by having more guns in the hands of "good people" to protect us against "bad people" with guns, inevitably we become less safe (somewhat counter-intuitively), and the shootings should become more common and violent. The idea here is that by having more guns we undermine the institutions which protect us, thus in instead of being more safe, we compromise our security.

There is another interesting point to be made. NRA says that criminals and mentally ill are as dangerous with guns. However, criminals will use guns with intent and they are safer for people in a sense that criminals will allow for negotiations in exchange for extraction of goods and services. On the other hand, mentally ill use guns not as threat but as a means to kill people, the one and only goal of their activity. Thus, if no citizen would have gun then surely we will all be vulnerable to gun-owning criminals, but we would be safer against being attacked by mentally ill because they will have less access to guns.

And as for statistics, violence and violence are not equal to each other so it is not correct to say that less guns did not decrease crime. We have to specify which crime, number of gun-related victims, and especially how often guns were used in criminal activity.

http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2013/01/guns-conservative-principles-and-three.html?showComment=1359526484051#c3504739903062696948