5 Reasons to Support Gun Rights and Oppose Gun Control

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on March 15, 2008 at 5:55 pm
LearnAboutGuns.com > Pro Gun Rights Articles > 5 Reasons to Support Gun Rights and Oppose Gun Control

Below is a non-exhaustive list of reasons why I support gun rights and oppose gun control:

1. Criminals who want a gun will get them, even if there are strict gun control laws. Only the law abiding, future crime victims, will obey the ban.
Even in countries that have a near total ban on ownership of guns, criminals will smuggle in guns, just like drugs are smuggled in. More sophisticated criminal gangs will even manufacture their own guns, or “reactivate” guns that were “deactivated”, such as in the UK. In short, no matter what laws are passed, criminals will have guns just as they have drugs.

2. Banning a constitutionally protected thing because some people will misuse it is wrong, ineffective, and unconstitutional.
We don’t ban free speech because some people will say untrue and harmful things. We don’t ban religious freedom because some people will have suicide cults. We don’t ban the right to be represented by a lawyer because some criminals will use a good lawyer to get away with murder. Furthermore, having gun rights helps protect our other civil rights.

3. Most guns are never used in a crime and most gun owners are law abiding citizens; we should not ban guns just because some people choose to misuse them
(in fact, ALL legal owners of guns are not felons since convicted felons are not allowed to own guns). The majority of gun-related crime is committed by people who are either already prohibited from having a gun by law (due to a felony or domestic violence conviction), or who would not be deterred by laws. The criminal who is about to commit murder, rape, robbery, or sell drugs, is not going to be deterred by a misdemeanor gun possession charge. On the other hand, the law abiding citizens whom we would want to have guns so that they can defend their homes, hunt, or enjoy the hobby of target practice, are the only people who would be deterred by gun control laws. I discuss this in further detail here, here and here.

ALSO READ:  What Happens When No One Has a Gun

4. Guns are the great equalizer
Firearms allow the physically weaker members of our society (such as the elderly, women who are less physically strong then the men who might attack them, etc.) to defend themselves from physically stronger attackers.  Taking away guns from the physically weaker members of society puts them at a disadvantage, relative to their physically stronger attackers.  Furthermore, a person who is willing to commit rape or attack the elderly will also be willing to violate gun control laws, which puts the victim at an even greater disadvantage.

5. Although I live in a good area,which has an effective and professional police department, I feel better at night knowing that if I were left with no other choice, I could use a firearm to defend my family’s lives.
The fact is that even with an excellent police department and a home security system, it will still take several minutes for the police to come to your aid. Several minutes is an eternity when it comes to having a criminal in your home, and more than enough time for horrible things to happen. With a firearm (stored in a good safe when we are not home to prevent theft) I would likely be able to stop a home invader before they could commit commit crimes against my family. I sincerely hope I will never need to use a firearm against another human being, but my shotgun just might save our lives if a criminal breaks in to harm us. If someone broke into your home at night, could you protect your family without a firearm? I discuss this in greater detail here.

Tags for this article: , , , , , , , ,


  • john10217

    we should keep gun but only pistol and shot guns and snipers there no need for machine guns

    • Jim1266

      machine guns are already illegal. If you are refering to asault rifles which are classified as assault weapons, they are semi-automatic just like handguns and are responsible for .6% of deaths by guns each year.

  • john10217

    gun do not kill people they just make the bullet go faster

  • joe

    1. Criminals who want a gun will get them, even if there are strict gun control laws. Only the law abiding, future crime victims, will obey the ban. This is no reason to own a gun, simply because criminals can own them. The deeper meaning behind this reason is that criminals will take from you unless you are equally armed, but there are many fallacies in that statement, the more important being your likelihood of meeting up with a criminal armed with a gun, which is pretty darned low. I’ve lived near DC all my life – gun capital of the world – and have never been a victim of a gun crime.
    2. Banning a constitutionally protected thing because some people will misuse it is wrong, ineffective, and unconstitutional. No one will convince me that gun ownership as referred to in the Constitution – A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed – means individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. It’s a militia they were talking about, and a militia is a group of people engaged in the defense of the “free” state. Even if it was “enshrined” in the constitution – and it was not – that does not mean the details of gun ownership should apply to ever Elmer Fudd you meet. The framers did not envision this country’s rural population would turn into a mass of gun-toting fearful white trash.
    3. Most guns are never used in a crime and most gun owners are law abiding citizens; we should not ban guns just because some people choose to misuse them
    Most atomic bombs have not been used in crimes. Should we allow everyone to make atomic bombs? Or, heroin users, for the most part, are not criminals; we shouldn’t ban heroin just because some people choose to misuse it. The premises and the logic are both irrelevant.
    4. Guns are the great equalizer
    One does not need a gun to be strong, and that is the problem with this statement. It also reveals the stated belief that there is a weak/strong dichotomy in society, that the speaker is experiencing it, and fearful of it. It would be just as easy to assert that there are many other people, not gun-owners, who make little of their position in society relative to either the weak or the strong, who repudiate the idea of competition itself, and would indeed be safer simply because there were fewer guns around.
    5. Although I live in a good area, which has an effective and professional police department, I feel better at night knowing that if I were left with no other choice, I could use a firearm to defend my family’s lives.
    Closely the author approaches here the very basic, perhaps most cogent reason for desiring a gun, and that is personal feelings and preferences being associated with “freedom.” These preferences generally appear mild as long as they do not other. If anything, this is the version of freedom alluded to in the Constitution, but it does not come about by government’s permissiveness, allowing individuals to carry things that can kill, to make the individual feel “safe.” Government doesn’t grant things, and we are not beholden to government (say, to serve in the armed forces) where we do not believe in the cause. Neither is withdrawing by law a consumption, for example, alcohol, any reason to consider the separation between government and the individual any bigger: the expectation is that as an individual, one does not go along with any law which, by its nature, may infringe on that persons individual precepts. That’s what true freedom in a democracy means to me. It’s the reason I am free to say no to gun ownership.

    • Bill Watts

      1. Only the law abiding, future crime victims, will obey the
      ban. This is no reason to own a gun, simply because criminals can own them. The
      deeper meaning behind this reason is that criminals will take from you unless
      you are equally armed, but there are many fallacies in that statement, the more
      important being your likelihood of meeting up with a criminal armed with a gun,
      which is pretty darned low. I’ve lived near DC all my life (gun capital of the
      world) and have never been a victim of a gun crime.

      Your perception of threat doesn’t dictate
      the extent of my rights, never have, never will. I alone stand in ultimate judgment
      of how I will defend myself, my property, my loved ones, and most of all my
      liberty. No man, or body of men, elected or ordained, will ever have the moral
      authority dictate to me otherwise. I accept that I will be accountable for my
      actions, as I freely exercise my inalienable rights within the limits that I
      don’t infringe on the inalienable rights of others. Insofar as the sanctity of
      my liberty and property is respected by both criminal and government, I pose no
      threat to anyone.

       

      "Self defense is a primary law
      of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; the immediate gift
      of the Creator, obliges everyone to resist the first approaches of
      tyranny." — Elbridge Gerry

       

      2. No one will convince me that gun ownership as referred to
      in the Constitution "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security
      of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
      infringed " means individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.

       

      That’s certainly your prerogative,
      but it holds no weight over what has been settled as a matter of adjudicated law,
      or natural law. The fact that you don’t value your inalienable right to defend
      yourself, or consider yourself incompetent to do so, changes nothing for those
      of us who love liberty, and who are competent.

       

      The right to keep and bear arms was
      a right antecedent to the constitution. It is inalienable, which is to state the
      even if the second amendment was removed, the right would still exist. A right that
      is inalienable is an inherent natural right, a right that we have from our creator.
      The fact that we the people are the sovereigns, means that no man can revoke the
      right.

       

      "The rights of conscience, of
      bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the
      people." — Fisher Ames

       

      "You have rights antecedent to
      all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human
      laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." — John
      Adams

       

      It’s a militia they were talking about, and a militia is a
      group of people engaged in the defense of the “free” state.

       

      And who was the militia? The
      individuals of the free states. Not the military of the National Guard.

       

      "Every citizen should be a
      soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of
      every free state." — Thomas Jefferson

       

      "None but an armed nation can
      dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore
      at all times important." — Thomas Jefferson

       

      "Suppose that we let a regular
      army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be
      entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to
      say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to
      repel the danger…half a million citizens with arms in their hands" —
      James Madison

       

      "A people armed and free forms
      a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation
      against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." — James Madison

       

      Even if it was "enshrined" in the constitution (and it was
      not) that does not mean the details of gun ownership should apply to ever
      Elmer Fudd you meet. The framers did not envision this country’s rural
      population would turn into a mass of gun-toting fearful white trash.

      "No free man shall ever be
      debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the
      right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
      tyranny in government" — Thomas Jefferson

      "As to the species of exercise, I advise the
      gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness,
      enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others
      of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the
      mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." —
      Thomas Jefferson

      "The constitutions of most of our states (and
      of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that
      they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at
      all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of
      religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." — Thomas
      Jefferson

      "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and
      everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all
      that’s good" — George Washington

      "The best we can hope for concerning the
      people at large is that they be properly armed." — Alexander Hamilton

      "Guard with jealous attention the public
      liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
      will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
      inevitably ruined." — Patrick Henry

      Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and
      debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?
      Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under
      our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
      defense be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be
      trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? —
      Patrick Henry

      "The great object is, that every man be armed.
      […] Every one who is able may have a gun." — Patrick Henry

      "To disarm the people… was the best and most
      effectual way to enslave them." — George Mason

      That the said Constitution shall never be construed
      to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights
      of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable
      citizens from keeping their own arms… — Samuel Adams

      "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used
      at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of
      tyranny or private self-defense." — John Adams

      Not only have you failed to substantiate your conclusions
      with either historical facts or evidence, you simply resort to pejorative insults
      in the form of prejudicial stereotyping. It’s obvious that you no less about
      the lawful people who own arms, then you do about our history. To see that you
      hold your fellow citizens in such disdain, ultimately speaks against your
      character, not ours.

       

      3. Most atomic bombs have not been used in crimes. Should we
      allow everyone to make atomic bombs?

       

      Irrelevant diversion to small arms possession.

       

      Or, heroin users, for the most part, are not criminals; we
      shouldn’t ban heroin just because some people choose to misuse it. The premises
      and the logic are both irrelevant.

       

      The misuse of heroin, is the sole choice and responsibility
      of the user.

       

      Again, no applicability to the right to keep and bear arms.

      4. One does not need a gun to be strong, and that is the
      problem with this statement. It also reveals the stated belief that there is a
      weak/strong dichotomy in society, that the speaker is experiencing it, and
      fearful of it.

       

      The speakers "fear" is irrelevant.
      The fact remains that a 110 pound woman, is no match for a 190 pound man intent
      on over powering her. Or a 140 pound man to another 200 pound man, or a 160
      pound desperate criminal to another 160 pound innocent man. Or two 150 pound
      criminals to a 200 pound innocent man.

       

      It would be just as easy to assert that there are many other
      people, not gun-owners, who make little of their position in society relative
      to either the weak or the strong, who repudiate the idea of competition itself,
      and would indeed be safer simply because there were fewer guns around.

      It’s not about competition, as if
      it’s some sort of sporting event, it’s about the right to survive, and protect
      your property. The fact remains, the gun in the hand of the law abiding is the
      only deterrent the criminal respects. Furthermore, the fewer guns around argument,
      does nothing to remove violent predation. Do some research on Australia and England.

       

      5. Closely the author approaches here the very basic,
      perhaps most cogent reason for desiring a gun, and that is personal feelings
      and preferences being associated with "freedom." These preferences generally
      appear mild as long as they do not other. If anything, this is the version of
      freedom alluded to in the Constitution, but it does not come about by
      government’s permissiveness, allowing individuals to carry things that can
      kill, to make the individual feel "safe." Government doesn’t grant things, and
      we are not beholden to government (say, to serve in the armed forces) where we
      do not believe in the cause. Neither is withdrawing by law a consumption, for
      example, alcohol, any reason to consider the separation between government and
      the individual any bigger: the expectation is that as an individual, one does
      not go along with any law which, by its nature, may infringe on that persons
      individual precepts. That’s what true freedom in a democracy means to me. It’s
      the reason I am free to say no to gun ownership.

       

      With the exception of a few typos above, we almost appear to agree.

       

      As for your freedom to say no to
      gun ownership, can only apply to you. You have no moral authority over the exercising
      of my inalienable rights, unless I transgress yours. The right to protect and
      defend ones life, liberty and property, is the birthright of a true American.

      • http://www.learnaboutguns.com The LearnAboutGuns.com Author

        Very well put, my friend.

    • http://www.learnaboutguns.com The LearnAboutGuns.c

      Joe,

      Thanks for the comment. I was preparing a detailed response to your statements, but after I hit the 1,500 word mark, I decided that the response deserved its own article. Since I've already written articles for the rest of the week, my response to your comment will be published on Monday.

  • Harry J Reeves

    I don't think the banning of guns is the main issue of the anti gun folks. I firmly believe it is just the first step toward making it a crime to defend ones self against any form of violence. I truly believe that these misguided people think it will cause all forms of personal violence to disappear. Why? Maybe they are afraid to face their own mortality. Their is definitely something strange about their thought processing. It could have something to due with the fact that human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on this planet.

  • Lynda

    Bravo, gentlemen, for your reasoned defense of our Constitutional rights. Loved the quotes, Mr. Watts. Thanks.

  • Terry McGahey

    This subject is not really about gun control when it comes to the U.N. and bleeding hearts within our own government. This subject is simply about disarming the people period. A man or woman with a gun is a citizen, a man or woman without a gun is a subject. What most people seem to miss in conversations such as this is that organizations against guns and or politicans against guns are only trying to devide the American people against themselves because by doing this they can hopefully re-write our constitution in the future. The gun control lobby and politicians are really nothing more than brainwashed people who want to push their own adgenda which is get rid of our constitution and re-write it as to place the American people beneath the heals of their boots and if we Americans don't wake up one day it will be too late. It starts with gun control then the government telling us how we can or cannot punnish our children and so on until we as American citizens lose our constitution and become nothing more than slaves to the system. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

    • Security

      We do not need to punish our children; we need to properly educate them.