There is a new study that will have the usual suspects in the gun-control lobby squealing with excitement. It claims that the arguments for the Second Amendment were based on a false premise. It suggests there really is no need to own a firearm because — statistically — they are not used in self-defense all that often.
This is where we could launch into a coma-inducing he-said-she-said number-crunching exercise, losing 90% of you before the next paragraph. Don’t worry. I’m no statistician, and I hate wading into that soup any more than I have to. Instead, let’s dissect the argument.
Before I get too far into this, a brief mention of who paid for that study (since you can be sure that if it supported the Second Amendment, the first question would be “did the NRA pay for it”). This study, whose findings are not in favour of gun ownership, was paid for (as described in the source article): “by the Herb Block Foundation, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., that focuses on prejudice and poverty. [and] The Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based nonprofit that focuses at least in part on anti-gun violence campaigns….”
Could that mean bias? Perhaps. Let’s dig a little deeper. Who actually conducted the study? The Violence Policy Center. Check out their website. A button at the top right corner says “donate today, help stop the gun violence epidemic”. Obviously, they, too, have a profit motive to consider when evaluating this study.
This makes me question their impartiality. Let’s look a little more closely. Their home page Navigation Bar under the header has the following topics: “Revealing the Impacts of Gun Violence”, “Regulating the Gun Industry”, “Investigating the Gun Lobby”. Under that first tab, the top 4 links use the word “victimization”.
Is this the language of impartiality? Is there an axe to grind or an agenda to push forward? With their donate button, don’t we need to question their money-motives? Or is it only coincidence that “The Joyce Foundation” paid these guys to conduct this study? Was the outcome ever in doubt? Isn’t this why the phrase “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” even exists?
Instead of interacting with this study as though it contained any shred of integrity, let’s examine their claim. Their reason gun owners want a gun is not justified, so they don’t need one.
News flash. They haven’t a hot clue why someone wants to own a gun. Let me spell this out in plain English. Why do they want a gun? Because they do. They are free and intend to remain that way. And… they don’t have to bloody well justify their reasons why to any hand-wringing pencil-necked panty-waisted paper-pusher uncomfortable with this answer.
Deal with it.
I haven’t interacted with the objection? Yes I have. That is reason enough. Free men and Free women in a free nation do NOT have to justify their reasons for owning one.
To the Leftist control freak lobbyist, that is the only answer you deserve or will be given.
That said, it is possible there is a reader new to the idea of gun ownership, one not coming at this issue from a position of hostility, but of honest ignorance. For you, I will give a more patient answer.
Why does someone own a gun? Because in some situations, you cannot depend on others — even police — for your own safety. Self-defense is not a right you can forfeit. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Included in that right to life is the right (and obligation) to defend it from threats.
Aside from wilderness situations, what are guns? Simply put, they are an equalizing force.
There was a time where the strongest men (it was always men) could force their will on others because physical combat was the only way to stop them. Firearms are very egalitarian. They do not care how tall you are, whether you are male or female (or even “other”), whether you are healthy or infirm, youthful or aged. They let little people stand up to big people. If you don’t like bullies, you must love firearms.
The main reason for having a gun is the same reason countries have armies: make a deterrent strong enough that you need not employ it.
Those old enough to remember the Cold War with the USSR, will remember the acronym MAD “Mutually Assured Destruction”. This meant that if either country launched a nuclear first strike, the other side had enough firepower to smash the aggressor to dust. Neither side was willing to risk becoming a radioactive wasteland, so the Cold War stayed “cold”.
Who do guns deter? It depends on the situation. Just like insurance, most of the time, it will never be needed. But should the need ever arise, you don’t want to be found wishing you had it.
The Framers had a strong sense that civilians should have a recourse if their own government went rogue. If rogue government is a real threat that citizens are meant to deter it would be madness to give that same government the power to disarm said civilians.
In a national emergency, if police cannot give assistance, guns allow a recourse to defend oneself. In situations where you are present in a public space and face a threat, you may not have time for police to respond, arrive, assess the situation and engage the aggressor.
And even in the instance of your own home? To this day, Kennesaw Georgia has a lower crime rate than the State or National averages (find out why). Gun Facts even has a whole page of citations that will respond to agenda-driven lies. They have the helpful advantage of being, you know, true. They actually have footnotes to sources, including official government figures.
Both Obama and Hillary are desperate to disarm the public. Too often we let their side get ahead of us on cultural issues, as they frame the discussion to their own advantage. They have been desperate to restrict guns, leveraging every possible opportunity. Even with San Bernardino, they tried to pitch gun control.
We need to get ahead of them for once. Will this be the issue we finally push back on? Or is Molon Labe just a sticker on your car?