No argument against gun control is as damning as its track record. Gun control as a method of crime control has been an utter failure anywhere it has been tried.
Rather than the safe gunfree zones promised by pious and self-righteous demagogues on the left, American cities like Chicago, Detroit and Washington D.C. remain the least safe places to live in the United States despite the highest levels of gun control.
Gun crime has skyrocketed in these communities even while the liberals push for even more gun control. Why is this? In these cities, and many others in Democrat states, it has become virtually impossible to obtain a firearm.
No doubt my opponent above is arguing that ever fewer guns holds the answer to all crime, and that the responsibility for all crime committed does not lie with the criminals but with their choice of weaponry.
But who does a gun restriction law actually help when it goes into effect, the victim or the criminal? Clearly, gun control empowers violent criminals by taking away the power of lawabiding citizens.
A 1986 study performed by the University of Massachusetts professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi found that gun ownership is by far the most effective way to deter violent crime.
Interviewing imprisoned felons, they found that violent criminals fear being shot by an armed citizen more than altercations with the police.
Why? Because an armed citizen presents an immediate credible threat to a potential criminal, and often an armed citizen is not easily discernible among a crowd.
It is no secret that guns can be obtained illegally, and this is the case all over the world. In fact, more restrictive laws on guns aid their illegal sale to criminals by giving more value to a black market.
Moreover, if a criminal is willing to break the law to perpetrate a crime against a citizen, then why would he be unwilling to purchase a gun illegally?
And this squares well with the fact that the guns used in crime are almost exclusively obtained illegally. Of legally purchased guns, about 0.02% are used in crime.
This means that by far the vast majority of firearms are used for self-defense and recreation, the most common and legitimate uses of weapons.
What matters more, what a thing could be used for, or what it is actually used for? We keep many items in our possession that often make effective weapons, and yet liberals are not calling to ban baseball bats and kitchen knives.
Guns, like many other dangerous objects, are used much more for recreation than they are for crime. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of private ownership of firearms. This is important to the selfsufficiency of America’s people and their independence from tyranny.
More importantly, the Second Amendment upholds something all people on the right and left should agree upon, the God-given and human right to defend one’s self and one’s family.
Truthfully, gun control advocates are not interested in advancing the safety of everyday Americans. Clearly, the facts show that guns deter crime and do not cause it. Liberals really see inherent evil in guns, rather than the people who use them in evil ways.
A gun, however, is an inanimate object and does not fire itself. If people seek to do evil, they will do evil no matter if they are holding a gun, a knife, or nothing at all.
The best chance any person has to defend his or herself against that is to have power for good, namely in the form of a firearm.