Louis
Member
From myuncommonsense.com
Armed with facts- Protecting gun rights
June 14, 2009
This debate has raged on for far too long. It ends today. Gun control advocates use half-truths, whole lies, and severely flawed logic. The Second Amendment makes the matter abundantly clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
All Americans should memorize this, along with the rest of the Constitution. The law is set in stone. The Constitution prohibits the government from taking, banning, or in any way “infringing” the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People go on to question whether state government can implement gun control. If you think individual states can control gun rights, ask yourself these questions:
Can your state tell you what you can and cannot say?
Can your state mandate a statewide religion?
Can your state take your property without due process of the law?
Can your state station National Guard troops in your home?
Can your state implement cruel and unusual punishment on its residents?
If you answered yes to any of these, congrats, you have no idea the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The same way a state cannot tell their citizens how to practice their religion or mandate that they only practice a certain religion, an individual state cannot restrict gun ownership.
Now that the law is settled, we get into a utilitarian debate. Does gun control reduce crime? Does it increase crime? The answers are clear, even though a countless number of people refuse to acknowledge them. The blindest of them all is the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence. Lets get some tennis action going. They argue:
“The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small.”
Americans use guns to defend themselves between 764,000 and 2.5 million times per year. The 764,000 figure comes from the lowest of nine surveys conducted by organizations like Gallup and the LA Times. What the Brady camp’s definition of “small” is, I have no idea. Not only that, but an estimated 1 in 5 of these DGU saved a life. That means between 152,800 and 500,000 lives saved each year through gun ownership. These lives mean nothing to the Brady camp?
“The gun lobby claims that all concealed permit holders are “law-abiding” citizens and will use their concealed handguns to deter and thwart crime. This is not a true statement, as documented by the crimes and misdeeds committed by permit holders every day.”
This one makes me chuckle. Why would a murder or criminal bother to go through training and pay for a license when they could easily obtain an illegal firearm and go commit the crime? Note how they don’t mention that 93% of all guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. If you’d rather have an example:
221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.
That puts us at 0.0081% of gun owners committing a crime with their firearm. From a strict utilitarian argument, if you count the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by gun ownership, you end up far outweighing the lives taken by allowing gun ownership.
“An armed society is an at-risk society. Many permit holders have been stripped of their permits for criminal behavior, and even law-abiding people get angry, drunk, careless or confused, make mistakes, and escalate minor arguments into deadly gun-play.”
Slippery slope and appeal to pathos much? It is true that citizens have been stripped of their licenses, not all morons can be sorted out through the application process. Again, this is a minimal detriment, while the positive effect by allowing gun ownership is massive.
Another common argument is that in Europe, specifically Britain, they have gun bans and the crime and/or murder rates are lower. The first problem is that this confuses correlation with causation. When determining the positive or negative effect of a policy, you need to look at the before and after. Europe has always had a lower murder rate, largely due to the demographic being stereotypically nonviolent. Also, the methods for recording homicide rates artificially make the rates seem lower than the US rate. For example, if a woman is murder in the US, and there are three murders who are charged but not convicted, this counts as a triple homicide on the records. In England, the murder isn’t even recorded unless someone is charged. I must note that the crime rate in Britain is NOT lower than the United States:
“The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America’s.” The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, “the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years.”
“Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says,” Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
Might I add that the crime rate in England increased by 40% in the two years following the 1997 gun ban. Gun crime even increased by 242% in the ten years following the ban. I could just as easily point out how the murder rate in Washington D.C. is incredibly high, even though they have a ban on gun ownership, yet Indianapolis has little gun control and their murder rate is incredibly low. This brings me to the opposite side, that of allowing gun ownership.
The best example for how allowing guns can reduce crime rates is Florida. In 1987, Florida allowed its citizens to carry concealed firearms. In the following nine years, the homicide rate dropped by 36% and gun crime rate dropped by 37%. As I previously stated, in the following nine years, only 18 permit holders were recorded of committing a crime. 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a gun control bill aiming to disarm citizens of so called “assault weapons”. Lest we mention that the assault weapons only accounted for less than 1% of all homicides, as compared to the 6% where the murder weapons was “feet”. Again, from a utilitarian argument, these “assault weapons” do more good than harm.
This brings me to my final, and most crucial, point. The key principle behind the Second Amendment isn’t the right to hunt or shoot skeet, even though they are included. The main reason for the Second Amendment is a way for the people to keep the government in line. The government should fear its people. Our country was able to achieve freedom and escape oppression because it had the ability to do so. Should we not own guns, what is the government to fear? We have seen in the past century millions of lives lost due to governments first removing their citizens’ right to own firearms, then continuing to kill the millions they just disarmed. In reality, Europe’s murder rate is far higher than the United State’s if you include the government sponsored murder that took place there during the past 100 years. I leave you with the essential reasoning for why gun control is a bad idea:
Nazi Germany: 12 million to 20 million killed
Soviet Union: 20 million killed
Turkey: 1.5 million Armenians killed
Nationalist/Communist China: 30 million to 45 million killed
Uganda: 300,000 killed
Rwanda: 800,000 killed
The government can try to take away my right to own firearms, but they won’t have it until my body is cold and I am six feet under.
Armed with facts- Protecting gun rights
June 14, 2009
This debate has raged on for far too long. It ends today. Gun control advocates use half-truths, whole lies, and severely flawed logic. The Second Amendment makes the matter abundantly clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
All Americans should memorize this, along with the rest of the Constitution. The law is set in stone. The Constitution prohibits the government from taking, banning, or in any way “infringing” the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People go on to question whether state government can implement gun control. If you think individual states can control gun rights, ask yourself these questions:
Can your state tell you what you can and cannot say?
Can your state mandate a statewide religion?
Can your state take your property without due process of the law?
Can your state station National Guard troops in your home?
Can your state implement cruel and unusual punishment on its residents?
If you answered yes to any of these, congrats, you have no idea the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The same way a state cannot tell their citizens how to practice their religion or mandate that they only practice a certain religion, an individual state cannot restrict gun ownership.
Now that the law is settled, we get into a utilitarian debate. Does gun control reduce crime? Does it increase crime? The answers are clear, even though a countless number of people refuse to acknowledge them. The blindest of them all is the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence. Lets get some tennis action going. They argue:
“The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small.”
Americans use guns to defend themselves between 764,000 and 2.5 million times per year. The 764,000 figure comes from the lowest of nine surveys conducted by organizations like Gallup and the LA Times. What the Brady camp’s definition of “small” is, I have no idea. Not only that, but an estimated 1 in 5 of these DGU saved a life. That means between 152,800 and 500,000 lives saved each year through gun ownership. These lives mean nothing to the Brady camp?
“The gun lobby claims that all concealed permit holders are “law-abiding” citizens and will use their concealed handguns to deter and thwart crime. This is not a true statement, as documented by the crimes and misdeeds committed by permit holders every day.”
This one makes me chuckle. Why would a murder or criminal bother to go through training and pay for a license when they could easily obtain an illegal firearm and go commit the crime? Note how they don’t mention that 93% of all guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. If you’d rather have an example:
221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.
That puts us at 0.0081% of gun owners committing a crime with their firearm. From a strict utilitarian argument, if you count the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by gun ownership, you end up far outweighing the lives taken by allowing gun ownership.
“An armed society is an at-risk society. Many permit holders have been stripped of their permits for criminal behavior, and even law-abiding people get angry, drunk, careless or confused, make mistakes, and escalate minor arguments into deadly gun-play.”
Slippery slope and appeal to pathos much? It is true that citizens have been stripped of their licenses, not all morons can be sorted out through the application process. Again, this is a minimal detriment, while the positive effect by allowing gun ownership is massive.
Another common argument is that in Europe, specifically Britain, they have gun bans and the crime and/or murder rates are lower. The first problem is that this confuses correlation with causation. When determining the positive or negative effect of a policy, you need to look at the before and after. Europe has always had a lower murder rate, largely due to the demographic being stereotypically nonviolent. Also, the methods for recording homicide rates artificially make the rates seem lower than the US rate. For example, if a woman is murder in the US, and there are three murders who are charged but not convicted, this counts as a triple homicide on the records. In England, the murder isn’t even recorded unless someone is charged. I must note that the crime rate in Britain is NOT lower than the United States:
“The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America’s.” The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, “the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years.”
“Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says,” Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
Might I add that the crime rate in England increased by 40% in the two years following the 1997 gun ban. Gun crime even increased by 242% in the ten years following the ban. I could just as easily point out how the murder rate in Washington D.C. is incredibly high, even though they have a ban on gun ownership, yet Indianapolis has little gun control and their murder rate is incredibly low. This brings me to the opposite side, that of allowing gun ownership.
The best example for how allowing guns can reduce crime rates is Florida. In 1987, Florida allowed its citizens to carry concealed firearms. In the following nine years, the homicide rate dropped by 36% and gun crime rate dropped by 37%. As I previously stated, in the following nine years, only 18 permit holders were recorded of committing a crime. 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a gun control bill aiming to disarm citizens of so called “assault weapons”. Lest we mention that the assault weapons only accounted for less than 1% of all homicides, as compared to the 6% where the murder weapons was “feet”. Again, from a utilitarian argument, these “assault weapons” do more good than harm.
This brings me to my final, and most crucial, point. The key principle behind the Second Amendment isn’t the right to hunt or shoot skeet, even though they are included. The main reason for the Second Amendment is a way for the people to keep the government in line. The government should fear its people. Our country was able to achieve freedom and escape oppression because it had the ability to do so. Should we not own guns, what is the government to fear? We have seen in the past century millions of lives lost due to governments first removing their citizens’ right to own firearms, then continuing to kill the millions they just disarmed. In reality, Europe’s murder rate is far higher than the United State’s if you include the government sponsored murder that took place there during the past 100 years. I leave you with the essential reasoning for why gun control is a bad idea:
Nazi Germany: 12 million to 20 million killed
Soviet Union: 20 million killed
Turkey: 1.5 million Armenians killed
Nationalist/Communist China: 30 million to 45 million killed
Uganda: 300,000 killed
Rwanda: 800,000 killed
The government can try to take away my right to own firearms, but they won’t have it until my body is cold and I am six feet under.
