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.
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.