Gun control is another political term that doesn’t quite mean what it sounds like. It would be more accurately stated as “gun centralization” or “gun consolidation”. The point being that the people pushing these policies don’t really want to control firearms as much as they only want the government to have them. The tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and other places are horrible, but we must think through the issue clearly. Sadly, there are those that are using dead kids as an emotional hammer to bully those that disagree. When you look at the numbers there is no evidence to suggest that assault rifles somehow cause gun violence. Therefore regulating them will have little to no effect except for disarming law abiding Americans.
Banning “assault rifles” and magazines that hold over 10 rounds are common demands from the gun control crowd. If these “assault rifles” are causing mass death and destruction, then surely that FBI’s crime statistics would reflect that, only they don’t.
In 2011 rifles of any type, not just “assault rifles”, were involved in 323 murders. For a population of 311 million and almost as many guns, that’s not too bad. And its been generally reducing every year. Let’s run through the weapons that have killed more people than rifles in 2011. Knives and other cutting instruments: 1,694. Blunt objects like hammers and clubs: 496. Personal weapons, literally hands and feet: 728. Other: 853.
To pretend that banning assault rifles would even affect the amount of violence in our society is naive. People choose to be violent, then they choose their weapon; not the other way around. England has been praised for its low gun deaths but it is also the the crime capital of Europe. If anything we need to find out what causes people to choose violence and crime and address that.
One of the more ridiculous arguments to disarm Americans is the claim that they don’t need that much firepower for hunting or self defense. It takes a special sort of nanny-statist to make such a claim. The whole hunting part of the debate is besides the point and frankly cheapens the value of the 2nd Amendment, so I’m going to skip it. Self defense, on the other hand, that’s where the magic happens.
Firearms are the great equalizer. With minimal training an individual can become just as dangerous as any psychopath, murderer, intruder, or thief. Even those with extensive firearm training can be stopped by an individual with a firearm and the will to use it. Its very startling how they can place the weak onto equal footing with the strong. You can’t say the same about swords, knives, fists, hammers, clubs, bow staffs, nun-chucks, light sabers, pointy sticks; you name it. The old can defend their homes from invaders, and the weak can hold off an aggressor. All this with a gas powered projectile delivery system.
The President just signed an executive order granting him and all presidents before him protection with armed guards for the rest of their lives. I’d bet you my first born that those men have these evil assault rifles with magazines containing over 10 bullets. Proof positive that these weapons are great for defending yourself and those important to you. Anyone else see the hypocrisy of Obama using guns to protect him and his family, but wanting to rob us of that same ability? We have already seen the results of disarming Americans and its not good. Nearly every mass shooting in the last 10 years has occurred in a “gun-free” zone. That is no coincident. It is in a mass murderer’s best interest to attack people that he or she knows are not armed and can not fight back.
Constitutionally, the right to bear arms was intended to give citizens the right and ability to resist a tyrannical state (which they had just finished doing). Statists will laugh off anyone that brings this up, but history is littered with examples of governments (even democracies) disarming its citizens and then committing mass murder on a scale that’s hard to imagine. Russia, Germany, China, Turkey, Uganda, and many more. I don’t believe the US government we turn on us, but I’m not naive enough to believe it could never happen.
The 2nd Amendment may have been written in an effort to prevent future tyranny, but I think it represents the individual’s right to independence and autonomy. Being able to defend yourself, your family, and your property is a keystone to individual liberty. The police and or the state can not be there for you 100% of the time. In the end you have to rely on yourself to protect and provide for your family and those around you. Anyone that would limit your ability for self defense is a tyrant of the first order.
One final point. Compared to the lawful owners of firearms the state has proven to be more reckless and deadly. Fast and Furious and the drone war are perfect examples. The government has intentionally sold assault weapons to drug lords in Mexico. Hundreds of people died in Mexico and at least 2 American border agents. The President has continued and expanded drone strikes in the Middle East. It has killed between 474 to 881 civilians since 2004. 178 of them were children. The President should mind his own business and focus on how to lower the number of people his administration is killing. Gun control is a fantasy and the tool of the ignorant and of tyrants.