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.
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. Wikipedia.org:
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.