I can’t convince my friends in New York City, but it’s just a fact: More guns — less crime.
Millions of American civilians have also been forbidden to have guns, and are also sitting ducks — for criminals, terrorists or psychos.
The following are some statements by the Founding Fathers. You tell me which one of them suggests that they gave us the Second Amendment for deer and duck hunting and protection against criminals.
The vast majority of people who own guns for their own self-protection are in no way responsible for a criminal, terrorizing person’s choice to harm others.
The great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.
Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted?
So many of the issues of our time — or perhaps any time — hinge on whether one considers the full context, or only one element of it.
We almost never hear about these hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns from the media, which will report the killing of a dozen people endlessly around the clock.
The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.