Before we start on this post, let me tell you a little bit about myself and my background with firearms.
I grew up in the country outside of Terre Haute, Indiana. My father taught me to shoot a .22 rifle when I was 5, and gave me my own .22 rifle for Christmas at 12 years old that I still have to this day. We had a place off the driveway that we would shoot down into a small valley at soda cans and a few targets. Later in college, I was a member of a marksmanship team that traveled around the Great Lakes Region competing in NCAA sanctioned matches which included the prestigious Camp Perry. My father and I reloaded our ammunition for the larger calibers, and I also competed locally. Occasionally, the local chipmunk population had to be thinned out as well as other vermin. There were other, less happy times as well involving firearms (link here near the end of the post). Through all of this, I learned that firearms are not toys, were tools to be used and respected just like a table saw, and must be handled properly to be safe. Improper handling can lead to disaster, not only for yourself, but to others as well.
It should then not be a surprise that I support the 2nd Amendment, and oppose gun control banning, especially legislation proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein and the rest of her ilk. What gun control banning implies is that the good Senator does not trust the population with weapons of any kind, and in the same stroke, disarm law-abiding citizens. That in itself is a crime against the citizens who are honest, hard-working, and wish only to provide for & protect their families.
Professor Gary Kleck of the Florida State School of Criminology and Criminal Justice performed a study on defensive gun use. During this study, estimates from 2.2 to 2.5 million incidents in which a gun was used to avert or prevent a crime were cited , although Professor Kleck does weed down this estimate by the time he gets to his conclusions. A statement in his conclusion caught my eye:
“Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they “almost certainly” saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.”
I look at this statement, and start thinking of the statistics, figures, arguments and statements used by the gun control banning crowd as their reasons for legislation that would disarm and remove personal protection options from people, and I have to shake my head in bewilderment. I can think of the statement, “If it saves one life…”, apply it to the above study, and turn the gun control ban argument back around on these people. Somehow, Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo, and others believe that they know better than the American Public on how to keep everyone safe (even if the afore mentioned politicians have security surrounding them at all times and we don’t).
But in reality, after all the facts and figures are presented, discussed, argued, and picked apart, their reasoning for gun control bans boil down into one statement: Guns are evil and must be banned because someone could get hurt. As Col. Potter would exclaim, “Horse Hockey!!”
Guns are inanimate objects. They don’t have feelings, nor are they likely to jump down off of a table and attack someone. No, it is the person using the gun that will determine if the use for the gun is for criminal or legal activities. This is not the politically correct view of where people are inherently good and the weapon is inherently bad. To which I would then ask…
If guns are responsible for crime, then what about crimes that are committed with hammers, knives, baseball bats, tire irons, steam irons, fists, feet, fireplace pokers, statuettes, desk phones, candlesticks, rope, lead pipes, pipe wrenches, etc…? Did those items (even when directly attached to a person) cause the person to go apes**t and commit a crime? The argument may be silly and inane, but I would like to think that you, the reader, would get the point that the person, not the object, is solely responsible for their actions.
Our gun control ban friends don’t think about that. Crime is something that some of them believe that can be legislated away, even though it is a proven fact that criminals disobey laws every day of the year! If the premise of passing legislation prevents crime were true, then rapes, robberies, murders, drug abuse, and drunk driving are now no longer a problem. You and I know, the sane people, that this is not the case.
However, some of our gun control ban friends do recognize that crime is a problem. But their solutions for people’s personal safety are anything but safe. For instance:
- Our Vice-President advocates shooting a shotgun outside to scare off any intruders (illegal in many areas, and hazardous as well).
- Our Vice-President also advocates shooting a shotgun through a door to keep people away from your house (also illegal, and what if a police officer or a loved one is on the other side?)
- Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar advocates campus safety tips to women to use call boxes, “safe zones”, and whistles to prevent sexual assaults (didn’t work for Amanda Collins, who was raped with a call box over her head in a safe zone 50 feet from the campus police office)
- College campus policies to women include telling potential attackers that “they have a disease, are menstruating, to scream, bite, hit, run away or allow rape to occur through “passive resistance.””
- Homeland Security policies include using scissors to attack and overpower an armed intruder.
Need I go on? Are you starting to see the insanity, or perhaps the insensitivity, of our gun control banning politicians giving us advice concerning our safety and at the same time trying to remove our rights to self defense with a firearm?
Now I know that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was flamed for making the statement, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” But stop and think: What are you doing when you call the police for help if you believe your life is in danger? You’re calling a good guy with a gun, and that’s only if you have the opportunity to make that call.
But how long is it going to take them to get to you after you make the call? I read somewhere that the average response time in my area for an officer to show up at my door is 8 minutes. In other sections of the country, it’s far longer (30 minutes plus). Sandy Hook was reported to be 20 minutes, although the time was probably around 11 minutes. Believe me, even 5 minutes is an eternity to wait for help if you are being attacked.
Gun control banning legislation only benefits the criminal element in our society. Our gun control banning politicians do not seem to realize that their legislation removes the Rights of the People to protect themselves…or maybe they do, and do not care because they have an agenda.
I would like to close out this post with the following statements:
I have purposefully kept the terms Liberal, Conservative, Republican, and Democrat out of this post. There are reasons for that –
- Not all Conservatives are pro-gun
- Not all Liberals are anti-gun
- Not all Republicans are Conservatives
- Not all Democrats are Liberal
The elected officials, our representatives, must be evaluated on their positions and their actions, and not by their political party affiliation. These politicians are ultimately responsible to We the People, and can be hired, rehired, or fired every election cycle. Did the politician serve your interests and uphold the laws of the United States, the US Constitution w/the Bill of Rights, & the Constitution of your state? This is their job evaluation, and you are their boss. If so, then vote for them. If not, then vote for their competition. This is how We the People ultimately affect our will upon the politicians if they do not respond to our letters, emails, and phone calls on issues that concern us.
Cross-posted to Tom’s Place