Empirical Arguments in Favor of Gun Rights Shouldn’t be Necessary

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on March 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm
LearnAboutGuns.com > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Empirical Arguments in Favor of Gun Rights Shouldn’t be Necessary

During the last two years, I’ve written over 1,000 articles which argue in favor of gun rights.  I’ve discussed how gun bans don’t work in this country or other counties, and instead only ensure that law abiding citizens are defenseless against the still-armed criminals.  I’ve also discussed the benefits of gun ownership for self defense, and provided numerous examples of armed citizens saving themselves from violent criminals.  While I enjoy writing such articles, and plan to do so for years to come, I don’t believe that it should be necessary at all to provide empirical arguments in favor of gun rights:

Why empirical arguments in favor of guns rights shouldn’t be necessary

Simply put, gun ownership is an individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  Our nation’s highest court made this clear in the landmark D.C. v. Heller case.  This means that it should not be necessary to argue the merits of the right to gun ownership, just as it is unnecessary to argue the merits of a person’s right to vote or be free from slavery.  Gun ownership (along with our other constitutional rights) is simply not subject to infringement on the grounds that some members of society disapprove of that right, and feel we would be better off if the right didn’t exist.

ALSO READ:  Fact: Criminals use "Assault Weapons" in less than 1% of All Gun Crimes

Why I will continue to make empirical arguments in favor of gun rights

Although empirical arguments to support gun rights shouldn’t be necessary, the sad fact is that some members of society are willing to ignore the 2nd Amendment – and the Supreme Court’s clear ruling that gun ownership is an individual right.  Debunking those individuals’ invalid  anti-gun studies, discussing pro-gun scientific data, and providing real-life examples of armed self defense seems to be more effective than simply saying the right exists and ending the discussion. For those reasons, I will continue to argue in favor of gun rights, even though such arguments shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

Tags for this article: ,


  • Rozyredtoes

    If you have a gun you win the argument if you both have a gun you can politely share a few beer together. Now that you understand how society works lets get on with the important stuff.

  • John

    This article seems to be saying that gun ownership and armed self-defense are a purely legal issue, and that because the second amendment is a law that is in place for a single country that should end all argument. While I generally am in agreement with the opinions expressed on this site, and find the author's articles to be extremely well thought out and well written, this one seems a bit narrow-minded. Gun ownership is an issue for more than one country, and it is an issue where people's opinions can be motivated by moral and practical arguments. Just because a law is in place does not make it correct, and when people find a law objectionable for whatever reason, it's only natural that they will argue against it and work to change it. I'd even say it's commendable to work to change a law you believe to be flawed.

    We must live under the law, and so the law is of great importance. However, ultimately, it's not the legal, but the moral and practical arguments against gun rights and armed self defense that must be addressed if opinions are to be changed, and our rights are to be preserved.

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

      John,

      I certainly don't intend to imply that gun ownership is a right that exists solely because of the 2nd Amendment:
      http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/27/the-righhttp://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/11/self-def

      Regarding your statement about changing laws: Fighting to change laws is admirable – when done through the proper means. However, trying to undermine a constitutional right through the passage of a statute is not proper, since the constitution trumps all statutes. The "proper" way of trying to take away gun rights (if that goal can even be called proper) would be a constitutional amendment that rescinded the 2nd Amendment.

  • Rozyredtoes

    Whoa folks! One of the genetic markers built into the nature of humans is self preservation which is self defense against any form of threat that could cause damage lethal or other wise to the human body. Man can not pass laws to supersede this or to modify it. Whether it be a gun, sword, club, chainsaw, flame thrower or just a plain big ass rock all humans and animals alike have this nature and it does not fall under any en forcible legislation. It was this sort of arrogance that the Nazi's tried and it caused the death of over 50 million people and they lost. Trying to take mans right of self preservation away from him will just cause the death of 50 or more million people again and they will lose. I will give up my gun only for something better like a truck load of tactical nukes. Amen.

  • Hicus Dicus

    A quick comment on the stabbing of Pat Regan the lady who started mothers against violence. Does this mean that there will now be an outcry against knives or will they change their focus from guns to mothers against knives and grandsons.

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

      To Hicus the Dicus, Your comment about the stabbing shows a definite insensitive personality. All the knife did was lay quietly minding its own business until it was picked up by a violent offender and used for unspeakable things. Why should the innocent knife be held responsible in any way for the actions of a demented human. You really should go take a closer look in the mirror and see who is actually looking back.

      • LibsRHaters

        To RRT: You need a sense of humor… Hicus Dicus is a name that should reflect to you that he has a sense of humor and might post sarcasm. What he was asking was a rhetorical question out of sarcasm.
        Do you have a lack of calcium? Do you have low bone density? Maybe you are missing a Funny Bone…

  • Larry Fields

    Eric,

    Thus far, the articles that I've read here have done a reasonably good job of covering the major bases. One general point about the Bill of Rights: A judicial salami-slicing attack on any one of them, including the Second Amendment, is an attack on all of them.