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.
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.
we should keep gun but only pistol and shot guns and snipers there no need for machine guns
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.
gun do not kill people they just make the bullet go faster
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.
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.
Very well put, my friend.
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.
My response, as promised: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2010/03/15/my-response-to-joes-comments-on-5-reasons-to-support-gun-rights-and-oppose-gun-control/
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.
Bravo, gentlemen, for your reasoned defense of our Constitutional rights. Loved the quotes, Mr. Watts. Thanks.
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!
We do not need to punish our children; we need to properly educate them.
are you a conspiracy theorist or do you have Schizophrenia or something?
REALLY WEAK REASONS
IF YOUR GUN IS STORED SAFELY IN YOUR HOME,DO YOU THINK AN INVADER WILL GIVE NOTICE SO YOU CAN PREPARE?
GREAT EQUALIZER? MY FATHER ARMED HIMSELF YEARS AGO AND WAS FRANTICALLY WAVING A FIREARM AROUND, I SLOWLY WALKED UP TO HIM FORCEFULLY TOOK AWAY THE WEAPON AND TOLD HIM TO BE THANKFUL IT WASN’T SOMEONE WHO REALLY WANTED TO HARM HIM. ANOTHER INCIDENT WHEN FIREARM DISCHARGED IN MY LIVING ROOM, RICKOTSHAYED OFF MY STONE WALL AND IMBEDED
ITSELF INTO MY CARPETING! DAD WAS NO LONGER WELCOME IF HE HAD FIREARM!
DOESN’T MATTER WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FIREARMS ARE USED FOR CRIME—IT ONLY TAKES ONE LOONEY AND ONE GUN
CONSTITUTION DESPARATELY NEEDS REVISION–IT WAS WRITTEN WHEN SINGLE SHOT MUSKETS WERE THE FIREARM OF THE DAY— NOT MULTI-SHOT UZIS/SHOTGUNS/SNIPER RIFLES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TODAY!
CRIMINALS WILL GET GUNS–NO DENIEL!! BUT IF YOU ARE FOUND W/AN ILLEGAL/UNREGISTERED FIREARM –AUTOMATIC 5 YRS IN JAIL –NO BS –NO PAROLE–NO EXCUSE WHATEVER
Please realize that not everyone who owns a gun is like your father, I do respect that you could have been critically or fatally wounded, but you did not mention if your father had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. if he were hypothetically under the influence then you should be ranting about that particular incident on learnaboutalcohol.com or something. also do you really think that back then muskets did not hurt people as much, if someone gets shot in the head with a musket or a sniper rifle then are they any more or less dead?
another thing to that is people have ways to protect themselves from more powerful guns now, such as kevlar vests, you can even make your own vest just as protective with duct tape also could you maybe turn off the caps lock