Why Everyone Needs Gun Nuts

Guns exist. They exist in huge numbers – conservative estimates put the number of guns in the United States at around 200 million. Or as someone once put it – there’s already pee in the pool.

I get it, anti-gun nuts. Clearly no one would be able to shoot anyone if guns didn’t exist or weren’t available to anyone. But to argue that inevitably futile efforts should be made towards that end is to reject objective reality on the assumption that such a goal is not only possible, but logistically feasible. It demonstrably and irrefutably isn’t, but that is not the point of this article. The point is that whatever your position is on the private ownership of firearms, everyone benefits from widespread proliferation of firearms.

Study after study has shown that areas where responsible citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms inevitably become the targets for crime facilitated by illicit gun use. Washington D.C. for example has some of the most draconian handgun regulations requiring permits, registration, background checks, fingerprinting, mandatory safety courses, spent shell cataloging, and requires that residents explain where the firearm will be kept and what it will be used for. This is actually a small step forward from the landmark Hellar case in 2008, prior to which no person could legally own a handgun within the District of Columbia. However, as of the writing of this article open carry is prohibited and concealed carry permits are not being issued.

This sounds great, right? No guns, no gun violence? Well I am sad to report that the criminals didn’t get (or don’t give two shits about) the memo.

Robberies in D.C. are up 55%, with a more than 100% increase in robberies involving a firearm at the time of this writing.

The reason is simple: By having such prohibitions on firearm ownership and carry, D.C. has basically put up a huge sign saying “Unarmed Victims Zone” at its borders.

More than guns actually protect people, it is the uncertainty of a mark being armed that deters criminals. Criminals know this – the majority of robberies take place with the implicit threat of violence. Violence itself is actually a rather poor motivational tool. Fear of violence, on the other hand, is historically the greatest motivational tool ever employed.

This, my “guns-are-bad-there-should-be-law” friends is why you fucks need fucks like me and mine, sprinkled randomly and anonymously in your neighborhoods. We create the uncertainty of armament that keeps people from invading your houses with the certainty of armament that keeps people from invading ours.

And so I pose some questions to all those who oppose private ownership of firearms:

Would you be willing to post a sign in front of your house declaring that there are no guns in your home?

Would you be willing to list your address in a searchable database declaring the same?

If not, then why would you be willing to de facto force your neighbors to do exactly that by prohibiting firearm ownership in a particular area?

Whether or not you keep firearms in your house is your business. Whether or not I keep firearms in my house is my business, but furthermore, the possibility that any of us have firearms in our houses keeps both of us safe. When you remove that uncertainty through gun control laws, you enact a certainty that violent criminals, who by their very nature have no respect for such laws, may maraud and plunder with near impunity, secure in the knowledge that they are the only ones who are armed.

The guns are out there – there is already pee in the pool – and legislation prohibiting or restricting firearm owership, open carry and concealed carry can only serve to disarm, by definition, those who choose to abide by the law. Such measures serve only to empower criminals and to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens who refuse to forfeit their right to defend by any means necessary their lives, their liberty, and their property.

9 thoughts on “Why Everyone Needs Gun Nuts

  1. Permalink  ⋅ Reply

    Charlie B

    December 11, 2012 at 12:58am

    Eh, I can agree to an extent, but this only adresses the people that argue to completely take away guns. According to this website (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm), which I’m assuming conducted a legit poll, roughly only 10-15% of people in America want to make all guns illegal. You will probably never change those people’s minds.

    Look again at that site. For simplicities sake, let’s say they number are split this way. 10% want no restrictions, 40% want MINOR restrictions, 40% want MAJOR restrictions, and the last 10% want guns to be illegal.

    We really should be talking about that sweet zone. 80% of people in America want some regulations. It is hard to argue that at least SOME regulations aren’t a good thing. I would consider myself somewhere in the middle (because isn’t it just easier that way) of the people that want minor/major regulations. I think a post about how much regulation is right would be a good read/fun to debate. It is too easy to argue with those 10% that want guns to be illegal. And it would probably equally as easy to argue with the other 10%.

  2. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    December 11, 2012 at 9:58am

    Charlie, looking at the stats you’ve provided, in the area where the distinction is made between minor and major restrictions, the sum of ‘totally illegal’ and ‘major restrictions’ is ~48%. So I hardly feel like I’m arguing against such a pithy minority as one mere tenth of the US population.

    I’m not so interested in determining the level of regulation that we can agree or disagree is appropriate or warranted – that’s an issue of pragmatics, not one of ethical philosophy, which is the aspect of the issue I am attempting to address.

    “Would you be willing to post a sign in front of your house declaring that there are no guns in your home?”

    It is an extremely simple question from which many ethical implications can be drawn.

  3. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    December 11, 2012 at 5:13pm

    Here is my view on it, and please dont go back to the “There is already pee in the pool” argument.

    The facts are they gun ownership has become part of American culture. This is problem. People feel that they need a gun to be safe because so many people have and own guns. Don’t you think that if the culture of arms carrying is diminished then the “reason” for gun ownership would then diminish as well.

    I have no problem with people owning guns, in fact almost everyone I know owns a gun (Typically for hunting and such). But as a culture we dot feel the need to carry around guns. In Canada guns are not required to protect yourselves. Most countries in the world have gun control and are safer then the US.

    Nutty, you will be the first to say that Pot propaganda started in the early 1900 and mindset that weed is a dangerous harmful drug hasn’t changed since. This is through arrogance and ignorance on governments and the populations behalf. This can also be said for guns. It was a “need” while in the old west. People needed guns to protect themselves. It was written into the constitution as a way to let people know that they can make themselves safe and protect their family, and helped bring people to a place in the world that was unsettled and strife with civil war.

    But as society grew up, this mindset did not. This is like saying placing unmanned drones around a city is to ensure its safety.

    As an outsider in a “foreign” country (me visiting the US), I would feel a whole lot safer in a place where there is gun control, then a place with random people walking around toting guns.

    If everyone stopped peeing in the pool, at some point in time, the water would be safe and clear.

  4. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    December 11, 2012 at 8:54pm

    Nut you’re right, banning guns is disarming law abiding peeps. Ian you’re right, the US needs to stop with the gun hobbies, hobbies that involve guns (like hunting) are a different story, but a hobby solely on just guns is unhealthy.
    That being said, the US needs to find a way to control guns without stigmatizing them nor turning them into a ubiquitously owned item. How? lol.

  5. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    December 12, 2012 at 4:43am

    “Would you be willing to post a sign in front of your house declaring that there are no guns in your home?”

    Brilliantly worded. I don’t think that a world with guns is the best solution- hell, it’s not even a good solution, but it’s the solution we’re in. No matter what, people are going to find reasons to hurt one another, and if you want to regulate guns you have to regulate everything that is blunt, dense, sharp, heavy, or just generally lethal. Not only that, but when you outlaw guns you encourage violent cartels. If someone steals from your gun shop, you have them arrested and sue them. If someone steals from your gang, you kill them. Regulation is a senseless practice in almost all regards, because if there is a demand, there will always be some shady motherfucker who will supply. Kill the demand, not the supply, and you will have fixed the problem.

  6. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    December 12, 2012 at 4:44am

    *the situation we’re in

  7. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    December 12, 2012 at 3:59pm

    Josiah, the things that you mention, stealing from a gun shop, stealing from gangs happen usually in places with no gun control. All of this is a non issue in Canada. Does it happen. Yes. Do people lose sleep over it and feel the need to arm themselves. No.

    The culture of the American Lifestyle tells you that you “have” to own a gun, if you don’t own a gun you are not safe. This is not true!

    Like I posted above it is like saying that cities need armed drones to fly around the city to keep the city safe. NO YOU DON’T.

    If guns were in the hands of licensed, qualified, responsible people only, then it would be safer for all. Yes I know guns will always get to the hands of criminals, BUT if you control who gets them, and take unregistered guns off the streets, it would help.

    I am not denying the fact that there are guns on the streets and it is dangerous, what I am saying is the solution is to work towards less guns and control then putting more guns out on the streets.

  8. Permalink  ⋅ Reply


    January 11, 2013 at 11:20am


    “if you … take unregistered guns off the streets, it would help.”

    We already do this. How do you propose we do it better? Checkpoints? Random TSA style searches?

    You’re hitting on a point that illustrates the futility of gun control. The majority of gun crimes committed in the US are committed with illegally obtained weapons. In which case many existing laws have already been violated prior to the commission of a crime involving a victim. Such laws are extremely strict as is, and yet their existence fails to effectively limit criminals’ access to firearms.

    The police are not magical, and our system of justice is not, ideally, setup to maximize the number of actual criminals being convicted – it is set up to minimize the number of innocent people being falsely incarcerated. It follows Blackstone’s formulation:

    “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

    John Adams take on it:

    “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

    But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

    Foreigners and citizens alike often complain that the number of crazies in my country is a reason to attempt to impose further controls upon firearms ownership. I say it is clearly the opposite while agreeing with the premise – there ARE a lot of crazies in this country, so I would like to keep the sane majority armed with as little obstruction as possible.

    Ian you also mention the ‘Wild West’ as if that’s all done, that’s a spot in history that has lost relevance and nothing resembling it will ever be repeated on this continent. This is a very incautious and naive assertion. I do not think you understand how fragile our society is, nor how rare it is for relative peace to exist within a nation for more than 200 years. I am aware that the industrial and technological revolutions have altered global society in a very deep way, but given the volatility that such revolutions imply I think it is foolish to pretend to know where the planet is going to be in even 50 years. Given that, I think it is wise to err on the side of caution when it comes to the potential need for firearms for protection.

Leave a Reply

Your email will not be published. Name and Email fields are required.