By, Kathy Six
Sept. 3, 2022
Legitimate Arguments or Emotional Manipulation?
These days, leftists in America are constantly trying to disarm law-abiding citizens, and in the wake of more mass shootings, the push for gun control measures are becoming more intense. Though their arguments might sound appealing to those who have little or no experience with firearms, the facts are on the side of gun owners.
But why do we always seem to give an inch and allow more gun control after mass shootings? The answer is simple—the left wants them banned entirely, and their using broadly defined legislation and emotional manipulation to get their way.
No Holds Barred Blitzkrieg
It is of no surprise to most of us that New York politicians are already looking for ways to skirt around the recent decision by the Supreme Court regarding carrying guns outside the home. With absolutely no evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms is detrimental to society, New York politicians have become fixated on preventing citizens from doing just that. Their newest tactic, define sensitive locations (as indicated as an exception in the ruling) and include nearly every location as sensitive. They are also seeking ways to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining permits. Governor Kathy Hochul is pushing the legislature through on a no holds barred blitzkrieg for the right to carry arms.
IRS: Armed & Loaded
This is only one example of the many attempts to take firearms away from law abiding citizens. Recently we learned that the IRS spent $700,000 on ammunition between March and June first. I suspect ammunition is not a gift to those whom they audit that show exemplary bookkeeping. In addition, the plan to hire 87,000 new IRS agents where this ammunition is being purchased is concerning at best. According to Fox New’s Will Cain, the IRS currently has over 5,000 guns and millions of rounds of ammunition. This begs the question, why does the government feel the need to stockpile weapons and ammunition while trying to keep them out of your hands?
Take Guns, See Results
Imagine if you will, a country where none of the citizens are armed while the government and its subsidiaries are heavily armed. But wait, one doesn't have to imagine, this is a situation that has occurred enough times in history and in current countries, that we do know the result. Disarmed citizens are sitting ducks. Let’s look at some historical moments to remind ourselves of the gravity of such a situation.
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
“The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.” (by Carlo in the Warrior Times)
Why, then, are gun control advocates so set on taking firearms from citizens? Here are some of the arguments they use in an attempt to convince you the second amendment should have extreme limitations.
Irrationale Justifications by Gun Control Advocates
Let’s start with the argument that the US are the leaders in mass shootings and homicide. To control this problem, we must ban more guns. This is a manipulation of information by definition. There are far more extreme mass shootings in other countries than the US both in number of events and victims per event. Since the FBI’s definition of what constitutes a mass shooting is so broad, it encompasses events such as gang violence, shooters that kill 3 or more family members and even robberies with multiple victims in a home or public building. This broad definition is not the same for other countries. When we think of mass shootings, we consider the shooter as going in with the intent to kill as many people as possible. However, the FBI definition does not report only these events as mass shootings, giving us a highly inflated number of mass shootings compared to other countries. In fact, the intentional homicide rate is inflated as well. According to the UNODC, the US rates are much lower than one might expect. John Miltimore included in an article on The Stream, data that supports the affirmation that the US ranks 11th for mass public shootings which is technically inflated since our definition does not match most other countries.. The news would like you to believe we are the masters of such events. By not reporting mass public shootings of other countries, it would seem our country has a corner on the “market”.
Homicides vs. High Gun Ownership
The following countries rate highest in gun ownership and protecting the right to bear arms. Finland, Thailand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Czech Republic, Serbia, Canada, Switzerland and the US. Only one of those countries rates higher than 5-9.9 of homicides per 100,000 people. Let’s compare this in reverse. Note the countries with the highest gun ownership. Compare it to the map of highest homicide rate. We should expect blue and blue to match. On the contrary, in many countries such as the US, the opposite is true. Of course there are mitigating factors when trying to compare countries all over the world. Gangs, drugs, police force and military, isolation such as islands and whether a country borders another high crime country are factors. Still, the comparisons should be far more concrete to establish that gun ownership among citizens would correlate at least to the greater degree to homicide rates.
More Guns, More Crime? Or, More Guns, Less Crime?
Another quoted argument for gun control is that more gun control produces less gun violence. There is abundant misconstrued data available primarily produced by gun control advocates and gun control advocates are quick to quote these studies. Since there is very limited gun control data collected and studied ethically, it is difficult to refute the data when it is quoted. However, there are a few well done, peer reviewed studies. John R Lott, Jr. has studied gun control since the early 90’s. In addition, he has updated his work each decade since. Three books worthy of reading are: Gun Control Myths, More Guns, Less Crime Third Edition, and The War on Guns by John R Lott, Jr.
Opposite is True
There are clear patterns in the data demonstrating the opposite is true. More gun control results in higher crime. Let’s take a look at Massachusetts. In the graph, it is clear what happens when gun control begins. There is a distinct spike in the murder rate following the ban.
This is not just true for the US. The following graph shows this same pattern for the UK. You can examine graphs from all over the world and the results are similar.
Using the NCIS data base, we can cross reference the number of background checks done for law abiding citizens purchasing firearms in comparison to violent crime.
This graph is stunning in the evidence that more citizens carrying firearms equates to a drop in crime.
Assault Rifles: Can’t We Just Focus on Those?
The most common argument today seems to revolve around assault rifles. This description is actually a misnomer. The word assault is a verb or action if you will, of how the gun might be used, not the type of gun it is. Rifles, shotguns and handguns are categorized according to the way in which they fire. For example, a semi automatic gun will shoot one round per pull of the trigger. An automatic will fire more than one round per trigger pull. There are also pump action firearms that require one to physically do an action to put another bullet or shot into the chamber. For instance, bolt action requires one must push the hammer forward to reload.
The Myth of the AK-47
Now let’s discuss the AK-47. It is assumed AK means assault rifle. It does not. This gun was invented in the Soviet Union known as a Kalashnikov. AK 47’s are gas operated and have detachable magazines. Surely then, most people intending to do maximum damage would opt for the AK 47’s with huge magazines, right? Surprisingly, not so. Semi automatics, the most common handgun and rifle, are actually the most common firearms used in homocides. This is the same for mass shootings, though graphs separating them from homocide alone are difficult to find. And since the FBI has such a loose definition as mentioned previously, we would be hard pressed to delineate one from the other. Still, we can see that rifles that can contain larger capacity magazines are a much smaller percentage than handguns and shotguns in violent crime.
Let's Just Create More Gun Free Zones?
How Is That Working?
No worthy politician for gun bans would avoid mentioning the importance of gun free zones. So how do gun free zones protect the public? They definitely keep the law-abiding citizens from carrying guns in those zones. What about the mass shooters? Let’s just push them into the non-law abiding category since murder is certainly breaking the law. Many would like to discredit John Lott for his work including CNN who insists that most shootings occur in non gun-free zones. However, one need only look past the political narrative to find that most data collected containing facts regarding mass shootings support Lott’s assertion that gun free zones are the primary targets of mass shooters. Here we can examine data collected by CPRC confirming Lott’s research.
Common sense is not very common anymore.
It, however, is a particularly good part of thinking logically. Why don’t we hear about mass shootings in police stations or courthouses? Common sense tells us that a shooter intending to do the most damage would avoid places where there are at least one person but likely more carrying a weapon. Interviews of mass shooters in the US have produced relevant information that gun ban advocates don’t want you to know. The majority of these criminals scoped their targets for days, weeks and even months in advance. For example, Adam Lanza, the Newton killer, spent two and half years planning his attack. Lanza wanted to kill more people than Anders Breivik of Norway. Lanza selected Sandy Hook because it posed the least likely threat. It was a gun free zone and had a large cluster of people in one place at one time. James Holmes admitted after his killing spree that he had carefully planned the theater of attack, security, and crowd size. He purposefully looked for a gun free zone. John Hauser chose one of only two movie theaters in his area of Lafayette, Louisiana that did not allow concealed or open carry.
Disarm the Masses; Achieve Ultimate Control
Common sense also tells us that a government that intends to control its people will need to disarm them first. History is our best example of how tyranny and facism can only be achieved through a passive public. If the only ones armed are the government, the people are at its mercy. Hitler was a prime example of using this tactic to achieve power and ultimately to annihilate anyone on earth who did not fit his definition aryan.
Know the Facts
When the news fails to report heroes who have protected the public from a shooter because they were carrying, and alternately spends massive amounts of time on shooters who achieved their goals, common sense tells us, there is inveigling going on. The narrative is written and we are to throw away our common sense to comply. Keep your common sense. Know the facts.
For more information on Lott’s research, read Gun Control Myths, More Guns, Less Crime Third Edition and The War on Guns.
Kathy Six - Teacher with a Master’s Degree in Gifted and Talented Students. Community involved at her lifelong residence of Fruitport, Michigan. Married to her husband Scott for 40 years and has two married children and four grandchildren. Kathy loves to hunt, fish, playing softball, and reads everything and anything she can get her hands on.