Thursday, July 26, 2007

The Fallacy of Gun Control

I wrote this a few months ago, but thought that I'd dig it up for fun's sake. The bibliography is included at the end. I didn't take shortcuts on my research; I simply didn't include a variety of emotionally motivated documents in the piece, or the biblio. When I started this blog, I decided not to venture into politics, as that makes for a much less enjoyable writing experience, as well as a combative comments section. This will be a rare trip into the political arena. The only reason that I can see for this piece actually offending anyone is if they are emotionally opposed to firearms. As most rational adults know, emotions are not a good basis for important decisions (unless we're talking about marriage; that's a different matter entirely). After reading what the far left had to offer, disgust and common sense took over. How sad. Enjoy the piece, pay attention, and take note of those that would deny us of our Constitutional Rights. They're out there; on both sides of the aisle.

The Fallacy of Gun Control

Guns are to crime as gasoline is to drunk driving. Both are elements in equations with many variables. Gasoline does not cause drunk driving. This fact is undisputed. Guns do not cause crime. This fact is not undisputed. Why? Are we ignorant enough to believe that there was no crime before the advent of firearms? Are we foolish enough to believe that the invention of firearms caused a spike in crime? Apparently so. The anti-gun crowd would have us believe that guns are the root of all evil. As much as the emotionally motivated folks on the left would love to believe this, it simply isn't true. Guns don't cause crime any more than gasoline causes drunk driving. The array of anti-gun laws has done nothing to reduce crime. Enforcing existing laws would do much more to curb crime than enacting new anti-gun laws would. The bills-du-jour of the far left would only inhibit law-abiding citizens. How deadly are these evil guns that the far left wants to ban?

In 2003 there were a total of 17,096 homicides (by all methods), and a total of 752 accidental deaths by firearms. That adds up to 17,848 deaths that could possibly be the result of firearms (this does not include suicides, as that is simply an asinine figure in this discussion). (Bureau of Census, 2005) In comparison, deaths from cancer of the colon, rectum and anus registered at 55,616. In other words, you were more likely to be killed by your own rear end than by a gun in 2003. If that's not enough, pneumonia killed 63,241 in 2003. Alzheimer's killed 63,343, and heart disease killed 901,753. (Bureau of Census, 2005) Mother Nature kills far more humans in America than guns do. In addition, since 1993, gun deaths have been on a steady decline. Why is the far left so adamant about their hatred of firearms? If they succeeded in repealing the Second Amendment, and confiscating the firearms of every law-abiding citizen in America, what would be the result?

Enthusiastic gun owners are fond of saying that if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would own guns. As cliché as that may sound, it's entirely true. It is already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm in America, yet many still do. Many violent criminals are repeat offenders. Many violent criminals also obtain firearms in ways that are already illegal. If they disregard current laws, why would they abide by additional laws? Banning firearms would not affect criminals. Only those that choose to obey the law would turn over their firearms. What would have happened in the late 1700's if colonists had surrendered their firearms to the British? We would still be ruled from London. Why can the anti-gun enthusiasts not understand the very clearly worded Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment clearly 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." (U.S. Constitution, 1997) Some would say that a "militia" is a military body. Upon forming that militia, it would indeed be a military body. What would be the makeup of a militia? Would it be ordinary citizens? It was in 1776. Let us take a peek at what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about a militia:

"The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed." (Oxford English Dictionary, 2002) That's pretty clear-cut. A militia is made of the civilian population. In order to assemble a militia, that population would need to be armed. This is simple common sense. Yet another indication that opponents of the Second Amendment are motivated by emotion, vice logic. Various anti-gun bills have been proposed over the past several years. For some reason, the authors of the bills chose to label them as "crime bills."

One of the most infamous "crime bills" to date is the Assault Weapons Ban, or AWB, included in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That sounds like a great bill. Unfortunately, it only created a definition of assault weapons based on mostly cosmetic features, such as bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and flash suppressors. (Caldwell, 2003) Let us dissect the impact of this law, one bit at a time. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, rifles and shotguns (the targets of the bill) were used in less than 10% of crimes in 2000. Handguns were the weapons of choice by criminals. (BATF, 2002) In addition, the Department of Justice also concluded that "the ban's impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement." (Wikipedia, 2007) Assault weapons are scary looking. Perhaps that's the motivation for the left to condemn them. I will say from personal experience as a U.S. Marine, that I would much rather have a good hunting rifle if I were seeking to kill humans. Most assault rifles are inferior in both design and caliber of ammunition. They may allow the user to fire many shots, but they lack the accuracy and punch of a good hunting rifle. Still, Carolyn McCarthy decries assault rifles as "weapons of mass destruction" in an essay that emotionally claims that they increase the threat of gun violence. (McCarthy, 2006) Banning things has not worked in the past, and it will not work now.

Banning alcohol didn't work. Prohibition created even more crime. Illegal drugs are a problem, and they continue to flourish. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, 23.7% of high school seniors report that they used marijuana in the past month. (Bruner, 1998) If banning drugs and alcohol don't work, why would banning guns work? They would still flourish, but only in the hands of the criminal element. Would any of us want to live in a nation where the criminal element is well armed, and we are not? We could certainly rely on the responsiveness of various law enforcement agencies, but that would only result in a thorough investigation after the fact. Police forces are very skilled at investigating crimes, once they've been committed. Cops don't materialize out of thin air when violent criminals confront us. During the 1990's, Americans used firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. (Ruoco, 2005) Gun laws don't protect us. Guns do.

Vermont has the most lax gun laws in the nation. In fact, the Brady Campaign gives Vermont a "D-" on "laws shielding families from gun violence." (Brady, 2005) Vermont must be rampant with violent crime! On the contrary, Vermont had a murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000 in 2005. (FBI, 2006) In comparison, Washington D.C., which has some of the strictest gun "control" laws in the nation, had a murder rate of 35.4 per 100,000 in 2005. (FBI, 2006) In 1976, Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington's homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (Ruoco, 2005) Restrictive firearm laws don't reduce crime. The idea of potential victims being armed reduces crime. Vermont demonstrates that fact.

Infringing on gun rights doesn't reduce crime. Doing so simply takes firearms away from law-abiding citizens, and potential victims of violent crime. Supporters of anti-gun legislation have shown themselves to be more emotional than logical, and they cannot produce evidence that gun "control" reduces crime. States that have the least restrictive gun laws have lower violent crime rates than those that have the most restrictive gun laws. In the face of this logic, the far left continues to rabidly cry foul over our right to keep and bear arms. This is disturbing, to say the least. If the far left is this adamant about abolishing the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, what other Constitutional rights will they attack next?


(1997). U.S. Constitution. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from U.S.

Constitution Online Web site:

(2002). Oxford English Dictionary . Retrieved March 10, 2007,

from Oxford English Dictionary Online Web site: y_type=word&queryword=militia&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_t ype=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=nmm6-kM6qVT- 13155&hilite=00309562

(2005). State Gun Laws: Vermont. Retrieved March 10, 2007,

from Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Web site:

Bruner, A.B. (1998).Adolescents and Illicit Drug Use. Journal of the American Medical Association. 280, 14-20.

Bureau of Census, (December, 2005). Deaths and Death Rates by

Selected Causes: 2002 and 2003. Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2006, Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://web.lexis-

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, (2002, July).

Major Gun Types by Age Group of Possessor. Crime Gun Trace Reports (200) National Report, Retrieved March 1, 2007, from

Caldwell, R. J. (2003, June, 16). Let Ineffective 'Assault Weapons'

Ban Expire. Human Events, 59, Retrieved March 1, 2007, from 0025966.htm

FBI, (2006). U.S. States Crime 2004 - 2005 . FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Retrieved March 1, 2007, from

FBI, (2006). U.S. States Crime 2004 - 2005 . FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Retrieved March 1, 2007, from

Federal Assault Weapons Ban. (2007). In Wikipedia [Web].

Retrieved March 10, 2007, from

McCarthy, C. (2006). Assault Weapons Increase the Threat of Gun Violence. Gun Violence, Retrieved March 8, 2007, from

Ruoco, J (2005, December 30). Gun Control. Retrieved March 10,

2007, from Just Facts Web site:


Anonymous said...

This is incredibly stupid. You used about 100 fallacies in your argument. I hope this was for some sort of Middle School paper.

Just John said...

You don't offer anything about the thesis of the article, only a childish insult and a laughable exaggeration; I guess that would make your comment...Hell, nevermind. Enjoy your bliss.