I currently do not own a gun. The only reason I don’t is because I live in an apartment complex that doesn’t allow them. However, the complex also doesn’t have any semblance of security.

So, if an armed assailant were to break into my apartment, I essentially would be screwed. A kitchen knife wouldn’t do much good in this situation.

Therein lies the dilemma of gun control. Liberals will argue that if guns were banned, crime rates would decrease. They cite all sorts of statistics to prove this point.

Likewise, gun control opponents cite statistics to prove that increased gun ownership decreases crime rates. This is exactly why I pay little attention to statistics, as they can be manipulated to mean just about anything. As Mark Twain once quipped, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Instead, I prefer to make a logical argument. First of all, would banning guns decrease the crime rate? My response is an emphatic “no.”

The issue is that banning gun ownership would not get rid of all of the guns. It would only take guns away from law-abiding citizens who would use them for personal protection or recreation.

Criminals, by definition, are law-breakers. How can anyone in their right mind honestly think that a law banning guns would deter criminals from having them? They have no regard for the law in the first place, so another law would mean very little to them.

What it would instead do, is turn law-abiding citizens into much easier targets for criminals. Murderers, burglars and rapists would know they have the upper hand on their victims because they have guns and their victims do not. Therefore, they would be much more likely to commit such crimes.

Conversely, if a criminal were afraid of the possibility of a gun barrel greeting him if he broke through some door, he would think twice about doing it. Gun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime.

For those who say you should just call the police, let me explain the blatant lack of logic in this argument. In my situation, by the time I picked up my phone, dialed 911, explained my situation and gave my address to the operator, the intruder would have found me. My apartment is too small to allow this much time.

Even if I lived in a large house and was able to complete the phone call, the intruder would still find me before the police could arrive. If he didn’t find me, he would find someone in my family first. Neither of those scenarios appeals to me.

What you have to remember is police officers are human. They simply cannot be there immediately. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Although an alarm system would negate the need to call the police, it doesn’t necessarily mean the intruder won’t find you before they can get there.

So, instead of praying that the cops will show up quickly or that the intruder will show mercy, I would prefer to defend myself. At least I would know I have a good chance of surviving the ordeal and that responsibility is in my hands and not someone else’s.

Now, the next argument against gun ownership would be that people like me would shoot others with no intention of harming me. This argument also holds no water. If someone breaks into my home, he obviously is not trying to collect donations for his church’s fundraiser.

Regardless of whether his intention is to kill me or not, he has no business being in my home. My mantra is to shoot first and ask questions later. If you tried talking to the intruder, this would give him the opportunity to find your location and potentially harm you. Personal protection trumps diplomacy. Let the police figure out why he broke in.

As far as I can tell, there is only one argument left to disprove. Some cite the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “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.”

They interpret this to apply only to state militias, which are obsolete today. But, the amendment is not limited to state militias. The Founding Fathers meant for the people to be armed to protect themselves against abuses and usurpations of power by the government. It was, after all, an armed people who rose up and rebelled against the tyrannical rule of the British.

So, don’t be fooled by gun control advocates who will tell you that guns kill people. This is like saying pencils misspell words. We don’t take away writing utensils because of a few illiterates.

An armed society is a polite society. Support gun ownership and don’t tread on the Constitution.

(1) comment


It's not as if all this hasn't been presented to the gun-grabbing left many times over, though, and, as far as I can tell, none of it has made the slightest dent. The whole purpose of Fast and Furious was to create phony statistics that the drug cartels were buying guns, unchallenged, in the U.S. and using them to commit crimes in Mexico as an excuse to further regulate guns here. Typical. When the stats don't agree with their meme, they try to create their own, phony statistics.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.