Introduction:
Advocates of the right to bear arms are often construed as radical
right-wingers who actively plan to form their own private militias.
To proponents of liberty such as myself, putting me in such a group is
similar to assuming that anti-abortionists all secretly plan to murder
staffers at abortion clinics. I’m not a radical, gun-toting, disgruntled
postal worker. In fact, I don’t even own a gun. I don’t know
that I ever will. It is still my opinion; however, that the right
to bear arms is one guaranteed by the constitution and should not be infringed.
There are those who want to limit this right, some even wanting to completely
take guns from civilian hands. I plan to address several of the most
logical arguments advanced by such gun-control advocates and respond with
the facts.
Carrying concealed handguns causes more crime.
It seems logical that if a guy has a gun on him, he’s more likely to
use it. However, there is no conclusive evidence to support that
notion. In fact, according to a study by University of Chicago professors
John R. Lott and David B. Mustard, “allowing citizens to carry concealed
weapons deters violent crimes, and it appears to produce no increase in
accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry
concealed guns provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570
murders, 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been
avoided yearly.” (“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-carry Concealed handguns”
University of Chicago, 15 August, 1996)
Also, states with right-to-carry provisions have an 18% lower
total violent crime rate, with 21% fewer homicides, a 32% lower robbery
rate and 11% fewer aggravated assaults than states without such laws.
In Florida, for example, since adopting right-to-carry in 1987, its homicide,
firearm homicide and handgun homicide rates have decreased 36%, 37% and
41% respectively. And less than two one-hundredths of a percent of
Florida carry licenses have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed
by licensees. (Florida Dept. of State, Copyright © 1999 by Second
Amendment Stuff. All rights reserved. Last revised: January 02, 1999 http://SecondAmendmentStuff.cncoffice.com/1998_NRA_Fact_Card.htm
Second Amendment Stuff Website)
The dangers of having a gun outweigh the safety benefits.
A) Danger to kids (one child is killed every day):
Author Dr. Gary Kleck notes that to reach this figure, anti-gun alarmists
must include “children” aged 18-24. The annual number of fatal firearm
accidents for children fell to an all-time low, in 1995, of 181.
In contrast, automobile accidents took the lives of 3,059 children, drowning
1,024, fires 833, and suffocation 213. In other words, other preventable
hazards account for a majority of accidental deaths among children.
There are very few people lobbying for cars to be abolished even though
they account for 16 times as many accidental deaths as do firearms. ( 1995.
National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 11, 18.)
Plus, when you hear a stat like such-and-such percent of all fatal
accidents among children are caused by guns, that is also misleading. If
you’re like me, you picture a little 5-year-old girl finding daddy’s revolver
and accidentally pulling the trigger. In fact, of firearm related
child deaths in 1995, 84% of those were between the ages of 14 and 19.
In other words only 16% of those deaths were 13 and younger. And
obviously a significantly lower number were children as I think of children.
The anti-firearm Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) and other “gun control”
advocates have applied this trick to NCHS data, resulting in the fraudulent
claim that firearms are involved in the deaths of “one child” every 90-odd
minutes, “10 children” every day, “5,000-plus children” every year, and
so on.
B) Protection of families.
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves as many a 2.5 million
times a year. That’s almost 7,000 times per day. This translates
to firearms being used 60 times more often for protecting the innocent
than for taking lives. (Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to
Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law,
1 (Fall 1995): 164.)
C) Sexual assaults:
And 200,000 of those defenses using guns are women avoiding sexual
assault. (Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence
and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.)
Of more than 32,000 attempted rapes in 1979, 32% were successful, but
only 3% of attempts succeeded when the woman had a gun. (U.S. Department
of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization
in 26 American Cities, 1979, p. 31.)
C) Mistaken killings:
In 1993 only 2% of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistaken
for a criminal. The error rate for police was 11 percent. (George
F. Will, “Are We a Nation of Cowards’?,” Newsweek (15 November 1993): 93.)
Only a few wacko gun-crazies really believe in the right to bear
arms:
84% of Americans believe citizens are guaranteed the right to keep
and bear arms under the Constitution.
75% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal
protection outside their homes.
53% favor a law that replaces the Brady 5-day waiting period with an
instant check of criminal records and only 34% believe the Brady Act is
working (Survey of registered voters, Lawrence Research, 1996.)
American crime and murder rate is high due to gun ownership:
According to the Chicago Tribune, there is no evidence to make such
a connection. The Swiss own guns a frequently as Americans, yet has
a 40% lower murder rate than gun-controlled Germany. New Zealanders
also own guns with the same frequency, but enjoyed a lower rate than gun-controlled
Australia. Israel, having a higher ownership rate than America has
a 40% lower murder rate than Canada. In fact, when you take information
from all countries instead of a select few, you will find no correlation.
(Dr. John Lott, “The Cold-hard facts about guns,” Chicago Tribune, May
8, 1998.)
The second amendment has been misinterpreted to guarantee all citizens
the right to bear arms:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added
to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia
Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18
and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was
to be armed. The Act stated: “Every citizen . . . [shall] provide
himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt,
two spare flints . . . .” The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for
any type of select militia such as the National Guard. (Militia Act
of 1792, printed in John F. Callan, The Military Laws of the United States
(Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1858): 65.)
Quotes from founders:
--“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
of Virginia, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
--“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress
to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience;
or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, Massachusetts’
U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
--“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison of Virginia, The
Federalist, No.46
--“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world aswell as property. . . Horrid mischief would
ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Thomas Paine Same
as above, except: http://SecondAmendmentStuff.cncoffice.com/quotatio.htm
Conclusion:
When it comes down to it, as with most cases, government regulation
is not the answer. You’ve heard it been said that guns don’t kill
people, people kill people. While it’s true that somebody intending
to kill can do so much easier with access to a gun, it is equally true
that an almost infinite majority of gun owners are not killers, but self-defenders.
The few instances when accidents occur are almost always the result of
irresponsibility. Gun ownership is a matter of personal responsibility,
not government regulation. It is every citizen’s right to own a gun.
That right, as guaranteed by the constitution, should not be infringed.
Adhering to the constitution is an all or nothing proposition, and denying
Americans rights granted under that sacred document, is a dangerous violation
of liberty. Or quoting the constitution of the United States, “the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”