Drizzt
Member
People Kill People
Firearms remain the final safeguard of liberty
Cristina Casis Conde
Staff Writer
In light of the sniper incidents that have recently taken place in the Washington, D.C. area, there has been a strong push for anti-gun legislation. It is of no surprise that gun owners are, and will continue to be, attacked by anti-gun legislation advocated by liberal ideologues. Highly profiled gun-related crimes have resulted in a public panic about gun violence and the left’s knee-jerk response to try and make it almost impossible to purchase firearms.
When a highly publicized shooting occurs, gun control becomes an immediate issue. Liberals demand that America should be protected from crazed, gun-wielding lunatics, but most gun owners own firearms for self-defense. Although gun control advocates have good intentions, they do not realize how harmful this is for society’s well being. As the popular saying goes, “The road to hell is paved by good intentions,†and gun control advocates are laying out the red carpet.
We cannot, however, ignore the fact that guns are used five times more often to save lives than to take them away. The problem is that the media only focuses on tragic outcomes of gun violence, rather than the devastating events that they have helped avoid. Fear of guns has increased because they ignore the fact that lives are saved because guns are used defensively, and instead focus on tragic events like the sniper incident. The cost of this misinformation is the safety of the people, as this hampers our ability to defend ourselves.
Guns actually do a lot more good than people give them credit for. Most people are unaware of the costs and benefits that private citizens acquire by owning firearms. Prof. Gary Kleck of the School of Criminology at Florida State University estimates that approximately 40,000 Americans would die every year if they could not use guns for self-defense. When attacked, the last thing a person should do is to give in to the assailant. The Department of Justice states that a person is 2.5 times more likely to be injured when offering no resistance than when resisting with a gun.
The fact is that criminals pick individuals they believe are weak; a criminal thinks twice when facing the possibility of confronting a loaded weapon. Studies have shown that injuries have been prevented by gun fear. Most criminals know a good way to get shot is by breaking into someone’s home. The flash of a gun sends assailants running, and many lives are saved. Kleck studied facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and he has concluded that private ownership of guns prevents crime and criminal behavior.
If America decides to take away every little thing that kills, then logically cars should go also because they claim more lives than guns. According to the 1998 National Safety’s Council, 43,200 thousands deaths were caused by cars, while 1,500 were caused by guns. This does not include the damage to the environment caused by smog from cars. Both cars and guns, though a necessary part of citizen’s lives, are dangerous. They should be considered a necessary evil.
It would be ludicrous to take away the privilege to drive, and the same should be true for guns. Cars kill more people than guns, but no one is trying to take another person’s privilege to drive. People, if they choose, should have the right to own guns.
Self-defense is a human right, and guns are as necessary today as they were during early American history. They have been a part of American society from the moment the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Old West and to today. If a person has no right to defend him or herself, then we are truly not free. If the government takes away our right to defend ourselves, then there will be no freedom left to fight for.
The Second Amendment is not just a bunch of meaningless words guaranteeing citizens the right to bear arms and start a militia, but, just like every other amendment, is a symbol of what this nation fought so hard to keep.
Suppressing and removing any one of these amendments because some do not feel that they fit with the times means removing the basic human rights that our forefathers fought so hard to preserve.
Suppressing or removing the Second Amendment because guns kill is the same as saying we must remove the First Amendment because it spreads hate speech. The government should always support the amendments and not call upon them when they are convenient.
James Madison feared tyranny of the masses and believed it should be the government’s obligation to protect the interests of the minorities. The anti-gun movement is growing due to fear and ignorance, wherein we see in this day and age an example of Madison’s fear of tyranny. What would happen if the interest of the majority were to prevail?
The fact of the matter is that gun control does not make the world safer; gun control instead creates millions of victims. In 1938, Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. â€
Jews, Gypsies and other ‘undesirables’ were prohibited from using any type of weapon; these people could not defend themselves. 13 million men, women and children died because of gun control. The same goes for other countries like China, Turkey, Soviet Union, Cambodia, Guatemala and Uganda, where millions of defenseless victims were rounded up and exterminated. These countries controlled people by disarming them. Gun control didn’t protect these millions of people from dying; it certainly will not protect millions of people today.
If one takes a case study of different today countries and compares homicide rates between different countries with different gun laws, then it’s evident that countries with less restrictive regulations have fewer homicide rates than those with more restrictive regulations. For example, Switzerland, which requires that every household own a gun and ammunition, has a very low homicide rate, while countries like Brazil boasting restrictive gun laws also have a very high homicide rate. England forbids its citizens from carrying any weapons, but assault, burglary and robbery are now higher in England than the United States.
The Department of Justice shows that American cities with minimal gun regulations have lower crime rates than those with strict gun laws. Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. have the strictest gun laws, but they also have the highest crime rates, including a drastic increase in homicides.
If gun control protects lives, one must ask how exactly. Would prohibiting guns help a woman fight off an attacker? Would it protect law-biding citizens from those who break into their homes? Would stricter gun laws prevent criminals from illegally obtaining firearms? Would stricter gun laws protect potential victims?
Stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Passing new laws will not stop criminals from stealing guns or buying them on the black market. Instead, stricter gun laws make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, leaving them vulnerable and defenseless.
The best way to approach these attacks is to punish the offenders, and not every American citizen exercising the freedom to bear arms.
Gun violence is a major issue, but we must realize the important role guns play in our society. Balancing between the dangers of guns and the right to own them is a fine line. American citizens, though, ultimately have the right to protect themselves.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~calrev/november2002/peoplekill.html
Firearms remain the final safeguard of liberty
Cristina Casis Conde
Staff Writer
In light of the sniper incidents that have recently taken place in the Washington, D.C. area, there has been a strong push for anti-gun legislation. It is of no surprise that gun owners are, and will continue to be, attacked by anti-gun legislation advocated by liberal ideologues. Highly profiled gun-related crimes have resulted in a public panic about gun violence and the left’s knee-jerk response to try and make it almost impossible to purchase firearms.
When a highly publicized shooting occurs, gun control becomes an immediate issue. Liberals demand that America should be protected from crazed, gun-wielding lunatics, but most gun owners own firearms for self-defense. Although gun control advocates have good intentions, they do not realize how harmful this is for society’s well being. As the popular saying goes, “The road to hell is paved by good intentions,†and gun control advocates are laying out the red carpet.
We cannot, however, ignore the fact that guns are used five times more often to save lives than to take them away. The problem is that the media only focuses on tragic outcomes of gun violence, rather than the devastating events that they have helped avoid. Fear of guns has increased because they ignore the fact that lives are saved because guns are used defensively, and instead focus on tragic events like the sniper incident. The cost of this misinformation is the safety of the people, as this hampers our ability to defend ourselves.
Guns actually do a lot more good than people give them credit for. Most people are unaware of the costs and benefits that private citizens acquire by owning firearms. Prof. Gary Kleck of the School of Criminology at Florida State University estimates that approximately 40,000 Americans would die every year if they could not use guns for self-defense. When attacked, the last thing a person should do is to give in to the assailant. The Department of Justice states that a person is 2.5 times more likely to be injured when offering no resistance than when resisting with a gun.
The fact is that criminals pick individuals they believe are weak; a criminal thinks twice when facing the possibility of confronting a loaded weapon. Studies have shown that injuries have been prevented by gun fear. Most criminals know a good way to get shot is by breaking into someone’s home. The flash of a gun sends assailants running, and many lives are saved. Kleck studied facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and he has concluded that private ownership of guns prevents crime and criminal behavior.
If America decides to take away every little thing that kills, then logically cars should go also because they claim more lives than guns. According to the 1998 National Safety’s Council, 43,200 thousands deaths were caused by cars, while 1,500 were caused by guns. This does not include the damage to the environment caused by smog from cars. Both cars and guns, though a necessary part of citizen’s lives, are dangerous. They should be considered a necessary evil.
It would be ludicrous to take away the privilege to drive, and the same should be true for guns. Cars kill more people than guns, but no one is trying to take another person’s privilege to drive. People, if they choose, should have the right to own guns.
Self-defense is a human right, and guns are as necessary today as they were during early American history. They have been a part of American society from the moment the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Old West and to today. If a person has no right to defend him or herself, then we are truly not free. If the government takes away our right to defend ourselves, then there will be no freedom left to fight for.
The Second Amendment is not just a bunch of meaningless words guaranteeing citizens the right to bear arms and start a militia, but, just like every other amendment, is a symbol of what this nation fought so hard to keep.
Suppressing and removing any one of these amendments because some do not feel that they fit with the times means removing the basic human rights that our forefathers fought so hard to preserve.
Suppressing or removing the Second Amendment because guns kill is the same as saying we must remove the First Amendment because it spreads hate speech. The government should always support the amendments and not call upon them when they are convenient.
James Madison feared tyranny of the masses and believed it should be the government’s obligation to protect the interests of the minorities. The anti-gun movement is growing due to fear and ignorance, wherein we see in this day and age an example of Madison’s fear of tyranny. What would happen if the interest of the majority were to prevail?
The fact of the matter is that gun control does not make the world safer; gun control instead creates millions of victims. In 1938, Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. â€
Jews, Gypsies and other ‘undesirables’ were prohibited from using any type of weapon; these people could not defend themselves. 13 million men, women and children died because of gun control. The same goes for other countries like China, Turkey, Soviet Union, Cambodia, Guatemala and Uganda, where millions of defenseless victims were rounded up and exterminated. These countries controlled people by disarming them. Gun control didn’t protect these millions of people from dying; it certainly will not protect millions of people today.
If one takes a case study of different today countries and compares homicide rates between different countries with different gun laws, then it’s evident that countries with less restrictive regulations have fewer homicide rates than those with more restrictive regulations. For example, Switzerland, which requires that every household own a gun and ammunition, has a very low homicide rate, while countries like Brazil boasting restrictive gun laws also have a very high homicide rate. England forbids its citizens from carrying any weapons, but assault, burglary and robbery are now higher in England than the United States.
The Department of Justice shows that American cities with minimal gun regulations have lower crime rates than those with strict gun laws. Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. have the strictest gun laws, but they also have the highest crime rates, including a drastic increase in homicides.
If gun control protects lives, one must ask how exactly. Would prohibiting guns help a woman fight off an attacker? Would it protect law-biding citizens from those who break into their homes? Would stricter gun laws prevent criminals from illegally obtaining firearms? Would stricter gun laws protect potential victims?
Stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Passing new laws will not stop criminals from stealing guns or buying them on the black market. Instead, stricter gun laws make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, leaving them vulnerable and defenseless.
The best way to approach these attacks is to punish the offenders, and not every American citizen exercising the freedom to bear arms.
Gun violence is a major issue, but we must realize the important role guns play in our society. Balancing between the dangers of guns and the right to own them is a fine line. American citizens, though, ultimately have the right to protect themselves.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~calrev/november2002/peoplekill.html
