Previous Post
Next Post


A TTAG reader sent us a link to a Pew Research study from 2013. The article highlights Americans’ ignorance of the fact – fact – that firearms-related homicides have dropped precipitously over the last 20 years, even as firearms ownership has soared to new, previously unimaginable heights. Gun rights advocates clock the stats and conclude that more guns = less crime, what with John Lott’s book of the same name making that point in excruciating detail. Meanwhile, gun control advocates would say that the fall in firearms-related homicide proves that the average American doesn’t need a gun. For my part, I’d like to point out that . . .

it stops being a statistic when it starts being you.

Living in a swank Texas suburb, avoiding stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things, my risk of being shot to death are lower than a snake’s belly. But it would really suck if it happened. Not just for me. As a single parent, my daughter’s life would be changed irrevocably, and not for the better. In the same way I have post-facto life insurance for an untimely death, I carry a gun as a pro-active life insurance policy. As do millions of Americans.

As our man Foghorn points out, people who carry a gun weigh the low risk of being shot against the calamity that would occur should push come to perforation (or a stabbing or bludgeoning). Not that Americans have to justify keeping and bearing arms – the Second Amendment is not subject to arguments about utility – but it’s easily done. I trust my firearm to protect my life more than I trust gun control advocates’ delusional belief that civilian disarmament will keep me and mine safe.

The simple truth: gun control advocates only have to be wrong one time for their argument to fall to pieces. An disarmed citizen need only face one lethal assault – with a gun, knife, baseball bat, fists, etc. – for gun control to fail. An armed American need only face one one lethal assault – with a gun, knife, baseball bat, fists, etc. – for gun rights to prove their worth.

I’m not sure how it could be more obvious: gun control doesn’t work. Criminals have and will always have access to guns. They are tooled-up in every gun control paradise you can name, from Venezuela to France. No law can stop bad guys getting guns. So why try? Gun rights advocates know the answer: a disarmed populace serves government’s inherent desire to solidify its power over the populace. That’s why we have a Second Amendment banning government infringement on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

Hunt for James Dorner (courtesy

The groundlings who support gun control don’t/can’t/won’t connect those dots. When confronted by the argument that gun control puts America on the slippery slope to tyranny, gun control advocates dismiss the idea as laughably unrealistic (ironically enough). An armed populace couldn’t possibly defend itself against the state’s combined military might. Never mind the numerous examples of single gunman evading hundreds of law enforcement officials (e.g., James Dorner). Our guns are a useless defense against the loss of liberty.

To their eternal shame, gun control advocates believe that gun owners even considering the possibility of armed defense against government tyranny are insurrectionists. How ass-backwards can you get? As TTAG commentator Ralph pointed out, “when the left dissents, it’s patriotism even though it’s just the opposite. When the right dissents, it’s insurrection even though it’s just the opposite. And in the left’s Bizarro America, the CSGV (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) is the new Ministry of Truth.”


Truth be told, whether they know it or not, gun control advocates are America’s fifth column.

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. Fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force.

The “enemy group” or “external force” here is straight-up fascism. You can hear it when progressives declare that “it take a village to raise a child” – code for “surrender your children to the state.” You can hear it when gun control advocates argue for some form of civilian disarmament – code for “surrender your sovereign citizenship to the state.” Simply put, the risk of losing [the rest of] our Constitutionally protected rights is too high to even consider implementing the unproven “benefits” of gun control.

History – both past and present – tell us there’s a significant risk that you and I would be shot to death (or executed by some other means) by any government tyrannical enough to deprive its citizens of their natural right to armed self-defense. Maybe not straight away, as Hawaii and New Jersey’s resident’s will testify, but eventually. You don’t have to be Ben Carson or a Jew to say “never again” to gun control advocates. May that always be at the ballot box. Meanwhile, keep your friends close and your guns closer.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Well said, Robert. The Left in America is working assiduously to create a progressive/fascist state. Their ideology stresses the subordination of the individual to the state and so this means that their ideology cannot allow them—even in the face of obvious truth—to acknowledge that personal protection with a firearm is both entirely logical and moral. The stumbling block that keeps them from success—and it’s a big one—is the 2nd amendment. That’s our ultimate protection in this on-going fight. But, it’s up to us to protect it.

  2. Its somewhat amazing how they grabbers, in their “armed populace couldn’t possibly defend itself against the state’s combined military might” tropes, assume that the police and military are automatons that will be 100% on board for war on the populace. If Obama commanded the military tomorrow to disarm Americans there would without a doubt be a significant effort at a coup. Hell, already we’ve seen sheriffs in NY and OR publicly declare they will not enforce new infringements on our rights.

    • And Washington. Don’t forget us. We had several sheriffs state they wouldn’t enforce I-594 because it’s unconstitutional.

  3. I’m new to the site but I’ll be back. I teach at a community college where they recently held “Active Shooter” training. It was worse than I thought it would be. Instead of lying on the floor and praying they don’t come in to my classroom, I am supposed to walk from my desk, across the room to the door where a shooter would probably be standing, and use a newly installed bat-phone to call campus security.

    Should the situation arise, I’ll shoot at them from across the room, about 20 ft. I’m really good from that distance.

    • It’s about as useful in a real-world attack as Bert the Turtle was in the cold war days. Phones by the door huh? How large was the committee that came up with that bit of genius?

  4. It’s all about perception: control the message, repeat it often, and define the “others” so that you can separate and demonize them. The public can adopt a mob mentality and will embrace the State as their “savior.” It’s sickening–and simple.

    • That is why they drag out PEW research, asking questions like the old Family Feud game. The response isn’t who is right, it is ‘what did the audience answer’. Also note PEW did not include ‘do not know’ responses. Most people would answer ‘do not know’ to a problem like this. Did they also self-disqualify anyone under the age of 40? Could a 30 year old really know what ‘gun crime’ was like when they were 10?
      Indeed, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but we need to respond to facts, not ‘feel bads’.

  5. Freedom rests on four boxes — the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.

    The soap box is under assault from the Left, using bogus phrases like “safe spaces” and “micro-aggressions,” and blaming free speech for shootings at PP and the nut who shot Gabby Giffords.

    The ballot box is under assault from the Left, using massive fraud and importing piles of dependent people to support whatever drivel that their paymasters demand.

    The jury box is under assault from the Left, using thugs in the street, arson and looting to intimidate jurors, police and anyone else.

    The ammo box is under assault by the Left — do I really have to count the ways?

    If and when the first three boxes are crushed by the Left, the fourth will be all we have.

  6. “people who carry a gun weigh the low risk of being shot against the calamity that would occur should push come to perforation…”

    I’ll go one better: weigh the calamity of being a crime victim against the relatively benign condition of being armed. Sure, it’s uncomfortable. I can’t have a glass of wine with dinner at that restaurant. I have to be vigilant about where I go when armed, both for legal and social reasons (don’t want to startle anyone). And there’s always the (small) risk of a negligent discharge. But besides that, there is little downside or risk to going about my business with a gat at my side. All things considered, why wouldn’t you carry?

  7. Those that rely on statistics to feel safe may very well become one. I live in a free enough country that guarantees me the right to have the best tool technology has today to protect my life and my family.

  8. Why this fixation on being shot to death . Are you any deader from a gunshot than you would be from a bomb, a knife, poison, car wreck? A roofing hammer to the skull will dead you just as quick as a .45.

    The thumb sucking panty wetters ignore all horrible and unnatural ways to die except gunshots.

  9. Well said Robert, good article. The dots are so obvious I can’t believe that so many are just ignorant. I think many people want to surrender the option of their own protection to the state because they are simply chicken shit and don’t want to defend themselves, so they want the option off the table.

  10. Robert can you get this published in USA Today? I like what you wrote in your opinion piece but this is the stronger statement.

  11. If you think about it most people carry because they don’t expect to be attacked. If you thought you would be in danger you wouldn’t go there . Yoy carry as protection from unexpected events.

  12. Crime is down-even in Chicago. There were 700 to 1000 murders per year in the 70’s,80’s and 90’s…but you didn’t have so many freakin’ 14year olds doing the shooting. NO cell phone cameras,no media who cared and a law and order mayor(except Jane Byrne). AND now you even have folks legally carrying in Chiraq. 500 murders that Chicago may hit would have been a triumph back then…

  13. “History – both past and present – tell us there’s a significant risk that you and I would be shot to death (or executed by some other means) by any government tyrannical enough to deprive its citizens of their natural right to armed self-defense. Maybe not straight away, as Hawaii and New Jersey’s resident’s will testify, but eventually…”

    Ask Laquan Macdonald – a ‘sanctioned’ execution where the city’s mayor and police department covered it up for political expediency – and only released it when absolutely compelled to.

  14. One point of contention: no one I know personally who wants to enact more gun control wants to do it for the sake of control.
    My liberal friends and acquaintances legitimately believe that reducing or removing access to firearms, for everyone, will result in more safety overall. They truly believe that other countries with lower incidence of ‘gun violence’ are better off, regardless of how much actual violence there is. A friend of mine regularly posts articles on facebook which use the phrase ‘gun violence’ so much it feels like a joke. As if it was somehow worse than dying in other way. Their problem is not that they want to control everyone, it’s that they just don’t have the capacity to see beyond the high-profile shootings into the hum-drum violence that truly affects people.
    Never attribute to malice that which is easily explainable by simply stupidity or ignorance.

    • Nigil, I salute your selectivity in your leftist acquaintances. My own family and friends of that persuasion are quite out front that their program, be it gun control, climate control, speech control, whatever, are all for the salubrious purpose of preventing people from making the wrong choices.

      Or, to restate, removing certain available choices from another ‘free and adult’ person.

      This is control. There is no malice. There is just the belief that the world would be better off if people who don’t know any better (ie, don’t agree with the leftists) are unable or less able to act on their erroneous beliefs.

      Your friend is so against the concept of gun violence, that they would likely prefer that 10 million africans were killed with spears and knives, rather than have 1 million shot fighting back. I know my friends would.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here