Violence in the media always seems to be a rallying cry for tougher gun control laws. While that’s convenient for gun opponents, it’s nothing more than playing on people’s emotions to “sell” their point of view. But there are, in my opinion, some serious problems with crying out for “gun control.”
The most obvious, and least talked about, is that the REAL problem is CRIMINALS. Criminals don’t care what laws are enacted, or who they penalize: they’re not going to follow ANY laws, period. And besides – anything a criminal wants to do with a gun is already illegal. We don’t need new laws to tell us that.
So the questions become: How can we reduce criminal activity, how can we eliminate criminal access to guns, and is there a way to anticipate who in society represents a real threat? Those are large and difficult questions, so here I’ll stick to the fallacies of tighter gun control, rather than trying to resolve these root issues.
Let’s look at the media and their play on emotions first. The main thrust of most media coverage when a gun is involved is on the gun – which, on it’s own, is just a tool – a tool that can be used for evil or defensive purposes. But the attention is on the gun, and the media focus subtly implies that, without the gun, this tragedy would have been avoided. Nothing can be further from the truth.
A criminal bent on evil behavior will find a way to accomplish their goal. If, in some way, every gun vanished, crime would still exist, and criminals would still use many other tools – such as a knife, a pipe, or even their fists and feet, to assault their victim. The other subtle implication is that these other tools are more limited, or less deadly – ie, that a criminal armed with a gun can kill or injure more people than one who is armed with something else.
That. too, is a fallacy, since a home-made bomb can easily kill dozens or hundreds of people – as we have historically seen. The criminal first decides what he wants to do, then he decides how he’ll do it. He’ll find or make the tools to accomplish his goal.
So, then, what does gun control really do? One thing it does is punish the people who didn’t commit the crime – the law-abiding citizen. They’re the only people who a stricter law will affect, and they’re innocent! Is it really appropriate, or necessary, to punish the innocent – those who represent no threat?
The next thing it does is reduce a law-abiding citizen’s ability to defend themselves, their family, and possibly those around them. Defending one’s self is a part of the natural order of this world. Every creature does it in some way, and to create laws that take away that right makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Because that’s what we’re really talking about – rights, liberties, freedoms. Government laws that limit our means to defend ourselves are a necessary step toward a totalitarian government. If private gun ownership is made illegal, then the average American has no recourse other than to depend on authorities for their protection. Authorities that may take 5, 10, 20, 30 or more minutes to arrive and “help” you. Now, do you suppose the dirtbag who broke into your house and robbed or assaulted you and your family will stick around and wait for the police? NO, obviously not! Will they be gentlemanly, and not hurt you or rape your wife or daughter because you begged and pleaded? NO, of course not! Disarming the populace serves only the criminals – it makes you an easy target and a sitting duck.
Think about this: if you were a criminal, and you had to choose a victim, would you pick one who was armed, trained, and determined to protect themselves as your target – or would you pick the sheep who has no defenses? Well, will a lone wolf attack a bear – or a fawn? The answer is obvious: the criminal, who has no desire to get hurt, will pick the easier prey. And that’s what gun control does: it turns most of society into unarmed prey.
Imagine living in a society like that – where criminals can run as rampant as they want because most people have no real way to defend themselves. It would be fun for the criminal, but I’d bet that most of us don’t want our families victimized at the whim of a sociopath.
If you think that’s exaggerating, there’s one thing you may want to think about: Why is it that the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the greatest rate of violent crime? It’s because those laws make it safe for criminals by turning citizens into prey. And conversely, having more legally armed citizens tends to decrease crime.
A great example of this is Kennesaw, Georgia. When the town passed an ordinance requiring every adult to have at least one gun in the home, burglaries ultimately decreased 89%. Well, why is that? Because criminals want safe working conditions too – they don’t want to break into a home and get shot for their trouble.
So the answer is simple. Preserve our right to self defense, and keep the most effective tools available to law-abiding citizens to act on that right when we’re threatened. After all, the law-abiding citizen isn’t the one who will be committing crimes or heinous killing sprees because they have a gun. In fact, legally armed and properly trained citizens have at times stopped criminals from victimizing a crowd of unarmed citizens, and took action on the spot – long before police could have arrived, saving untold lives in the process.
When you consider unfortunate events, such as those in Aurora, Colorado, I’m firmly convinced that even one legally carried handgun would have saved lives and reduced injuries. And I’m also convinced that the people whose lives would have been saved, and the people not injured, would have been grateful for that defender.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kevin_Adam