Gun Control:  More like Self-Defense Control

Author: Erick, Patriot Fire founder (U.S.) April 17, 2007 (revised 6-13-07)

     Nothing angers far-left liberals more than saying guns should have less government control. They come up with crackpot ideas and theories on this subject so often and from every angle it baffles many.  Ideas such as guns kill more than saving them.  Here's a newsflash, guns were not intended to perform life-saving emergency techniques such as C.P.R. or the Heimlich maneuver!  Guns were designed to kill, thats the purpose.

     Many liberals take a stand on defending criminals instead of innocent people.  Anti-gun lobbyists say law enforcement should be the ones to protect; yet, police officers cannot be everywhere at all times.  Thats why the "Right to Bear Arms" is in the Bill of Rights (or God-given rights as some refer to it).  The Founding Fathers knew people had to be able to defend themselves when the Army or policing authorities could not.  The liberals attack on this statement would be, "But who's to judge who is bad and who is good when it involves civilians?"  If a person cannot distinguish between a masked robber breaking through a window, or Santa Clause in "off-season" months, then this person is obviously incapable of even obtaining or firing a gun in the first place. 

     Liberal counter-point to the above?  They would say something to the effect of, "People can make mistakes and shoot the wrong person!"  Come on, liberals are now backing their ideas with phrases like "people can make mistakes."  Really?  I thought it was just the other day that everyone knew we were all perfect.

     I dont disagree that there have been incidents when someone mistakes a friend or loved one with a burglar and injury occurs.  However, looking at how many of these accidents have occurred, its not very often; especially compared to the number of property and violent crimes that take place in the U.S.

     Here's another crack-pot theory, garbage about how the European countries have banned guns and significantly reduced crime.  Lets look at the European countries where the
criminals that are armed with guns run amock and the police cannot do anything to stop them. Why?  Not even the police on the street can have guns. Good job on giving what the criminal wants; a police force that cant even do its job.

     Anti-gun activists love to whine about people getting severely injured or mortally wounded because of firearms.  Yet, these people never show that an overwhelming majority of people that are wounded or killed by firearms are usually criminals; whether the criminal is shot by innocents in defence, or by other criminals (gangs).  Thugs using guns for crime is the main objection to liberals promoting anti-gun propaganda.  Their claim is that if all firearms are banned, then crimes would be reduced.

     Again, another false theory.  The European countries that do not allow citizens (and police) to legally own guns have double, and even triple, the amount of property and violent crime than the U.S.  These countries have a far much smaller population and less total land area to enforce than the United States, yet, violent crime and property crime is much higher.

     Israel on the other hand has common gun ownership, yet, crime rate is very low.  The terrorist attacks are cultural and regional issues, not gun ownership problems.

     In conclusion, I dont want someone just out of prison owning guns, nor do I want mentally unstable people with firearms.  However, vast majority of the population are the regular "Joe" that could own a gun their entire life and never need it for self-defense.  People reading this in favor of gun-bans would argue, "If they would never need guns, then why have guns?"  My response would quote a movie, a character told another that the mission wouldn't involve any real danger, she replied "I'd rather have a gun and never need it, than need a gun and not have it."