The Myths of Gun Control

Screenwriter and former liberal David Mamet outlines a very logical case against the latest effort at gun control:

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

The cities with the strictest regulation of firearms, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., have the nation’s highest murder rates. Obviously, laws are not enough to deter criminals from acquiring guns, but they seem to do a reasonable job of disarming the law-abiding citizens. Gun control advocates never seem to make this logical observation.

The truth is that guns are the great equalizer of humanity. If firearms did not exist, then the weak would always be at the mercy of the strong. Children, disabled people, the elderly, and single women would have no defense against the thugs, thieves, rapists, and murderers who seek to impose their will upon others. A gun, however, gives these potential victims a measure of protection against the monsters and wolves of society. Nonagenarians and children alike have used firearms to protect themselves and their homes from evil men who would do them harm. In short, the gun is civilization:

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

I like to think that most average citizens who wish to do away with firearms come to their position through a sort of innocent naïveté. The truth of the matter, however, is that the gun is more important as a tool of protection than it is a tool of destruction, and the politicians and the elites who want to do away with firearms certainly understand that. President Obama and his family are protected by armed Secret Service agents around the clock. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a new bill to ban certain guns, is also protected by armed security. Hollywood actors have armed retinues, as do anti-gun mayors such as Rahm Emanuel of Chicago and Michael Bloomberg of New York. In short, the rich and the powerful have the ability to surround themselves with a small army’s worth of weapons and ammunition. When it comes to their families, the rich and powerful spare no expense in assuring their protection, but then they have the audacity to tell you, the average middle-class American, that you should not have the right to protect your family in the same manner.

The gun is civilization. A poor man cannot afford 24/7 armed security, but he can still protect his home and his family with a gun. It is the so-called progressives, who claim to champion the cause of the poor, who aim to take away that right while keeping it for themselves.

If you listen to the mainstream news, you might be tempted to say that banning “assault weapons” is a reasonable compromise. Not so. First, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. The term was coined by anti-gun advocated in order to frighten the uninformed. This site gives a concise demonstration of the truth about guns that the phrase attempts to obfuscate. Finally, John Hinderaker of PowerLine fisks Senator Feinstein’s bill, explaining how ridiculous her proposal really is.

Anti-gun advocates like to say that a gun is a tool with only one purpose: to harm and kill. You know what? I will grant that. Having the ability to harm and kill a criminal who intends harm to me and my family is one of the most important natural rights that we have as human beings. A government that would seek to limit or deny that ability is no friend of human rights, and should rightly be considered a tyranny.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: