A summary of my thoughts - and if you're passionate about gun control, I would suggest you come to some sort of conclusion and form a rebuttal on this, my last argument. Several studies found linkages between violent death rates and socio-economic development, demonstrating that homicide rates are higher wherever income disparity, extreme poverty, and hunger are high.
Separating the stats of methodology used in violent death does not address the above causes of violence. The argument “guns don’t kill people, people Kill people” while irritating, and factually incorrect as guns do indeed kill people – The theme behind this statement merely points out that removing the method of violent crimes, does not remove the tendency to commit violent crimes. Gun control advocates are quick to point out that violent crimes committed with guns are abnormally high in the United States and ask for some explanation. My only response is we have the least restrictive gun laws in the world and guns are widely available; as stated above, guns are effective tools for killing. Seems like a victory for advocating for gun control, but I then ask you to please explain this study:
www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/GBAV2/GBAV2011-Fig-2.3-complete.pdf Why if the United states has the highest rate of gun deaths, do we not even show up on a list of countries with high rates of violent deaths? Are we to expect that if the popular method of violent crimes are removed, that violent crimes would also disappear? What correlation do you see between the list of countries linked above? Is it possible that addressing issues of income disparity, extreme poverty, and hunger would go farther to stopping not only gun deaths, but all violent deaths? What tools would individuals resort to if guns were not available? Would instances such as Aurora Colorado have been worse if a bomb was used? How would tighter gun control stop Oklahoma City type bombings? Could guns play some part in preventing violent crimes from taking place? To answer that question, I invite you to spend time here:
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/category/ccm-departments/true-stories/ Next on the agenda; Assault weapons. The common theme seems to be “no one needs assault weapons” I would ask you what defines an assault weapon? High capacity? Can be obtained in most hand-guns; up to 40 rounds. High power? Most hunting rifles are consider high powered and can be expanded to have higher capacity. Rate of fire? Fully automatic weapons have been HIGHLY regulated since 1934 and purchasing one requires multiple identity checks, costly permits, and extreme laws pertaining to transportation – licensing and selling which are all punishable as federal offenses if not followed correctly; gun control enthusiast already won that battle. Semi-automatic? Everything from a handgun, to shotgun & even high powered rifle can be purchased or modified to be semi-automatic. The honest truth is what defines an assault weapon is the behind intent of the user. An individual may choose to assault someone with a shotgun, while one individual may defend themselves with an “assault rifle”. Picking and choosing what guns to restrict leads you down that dangerous rabbit hole of eliminating all guns leaving individuals defenseless against the violent crimes that, based on my above argument, are sure to still be rampant. I do think it’s important to point out that James Holmes likely killed more people with the shot-gun & hand gun combined than he did with his AR-15; as he started first with the shotgun – unloading as little as 6 rounds – possibly more, switched to the hand gun unloading 40 rounds in one clip & finally went to the AR-15 where fortunately his gun jammed before getting off all 100 rounds. What would preventing the sales or ownership of any weapon - stopped? He was intent on assaulting – and any available weapon could have been chosen.
The sad truth behind all of this, is we as society, need guns. We need them to protect ourselves from tyranny. We need them to protect ourselves from violence. We need them to protect ourselves from our protectors. Until the military, the police, & homeland security lay down their guns – I would suggest you keep the right to have one.
