| A Logical Answer to the Gun Control Debate | |||
|
|
An object, laying on a table. It is completely inanimate, which means that it
has no ability to perform actions without some outside force acting upon it.
Until someone, anyone, comes and picks up this object, activates it in whatever
capacity it is designed to be activated, the object will continue to sit on the
table, inanimate. A gun is an inanimate object, completely incapable of action
on its own volition.
An object cannot kill, because it is inanimate. An object can be USED to kill, but of itself, nothing can kill. A large rock on a mountainside cannot kill, unless by an act of God (a legal term denoting the forces of nature). A knife cannot kill, unless it is in a persons hand. A gun cannot kill, unless it is held by someone using it to kill. If an object is used by someone to kill, do we say that the object killed? Or, do we say that the person wielding the object killed? This is an obvious answer, the person killed, using the object. Are so many people truly not intelligent enough to realize this, or do they honestly not want to know? As you probably realize, I am discussing the issue of gun control. And yet, to apply what I have just finished clarifying, �gun control� is a misnomer (literally: wrong-name). If guns do not kill, why should we try to �control� them. Should we, as a nation, attempt to �control� an object simply because it is used by some few to bring death? Guns are proven, by all truly comprehensive studies done on the issue, to prevent hundreds of times more crime than they ever foment. If you find this hard to believe, go to the library, and rent the book "More Guns, Less Crime," by University of Chicago Professor John Lott, and read the chapter " The Political and Academic Debate". Should we ban rocks because they cause death in accidents? Should we ban knives because they are used in both premeditated and accidental murder? Should we ban trees because they can fall and hurt people? Of course not. Why not? Because they cause more good than harm. Rocks are important parts of many ecosystems on this planet. Knives are used billions of times every day for good, even noble purposes: surgery, decorating, preparing food. Trees filter our air, providing precious oxygen for we humans. Because of constraints of space, I cannot go into all the exact numbers of how much crime guns prevent, compared to how much they foment. But there is information, and all you have to do is look. And this is not a case of the subjective "my facts versus your facts." The �facts� which many claim to support gun control are scanty bits of fodder compared to the overwhelming, incontrovertible, mountain of facts supporting arguments against gun control. Two studies which addressed the issue of "right to carry" laws surveyed the all the states in which such laws had been passed, were conducted at the same time, and came up with completely opposite findings. One of these studies, done by the group Handgun Control, and hailed by those supporting gun control, shows that when people were given the right the carry firearms in public, the crime rate did not go down as predicted. The other study, showed that the crime rate came down significantly in the same time. How did these two studies come up with such different findings? One of the studies only took in the records from counties which had populations of over 100,000 people. The other study took in all counties, regardless of population. By only sampling the more populous counties, Handgun Control managed to overlook 89% of the population of several states, and 85% of all the counties in the states with "right to carry" laws. Would we call the Census accurate if it skipped 89% of the people it was supposed to count? One thing always trumpeted by rival factions when one side comes up with a particularly supportive study is: "But you don�t take into account other factors which also might have had an effect on..." whatever the particular issue is. One way to prevent other factors from influencing the results of a study is to take as broad a sampling as possible of as diverse a section as possible. The aforementioned study which claimed little to no reduction in the crime rate had only examined the large metropolitan counties of the subject states. Whereas the study showing a significant decrease in the crime rates took all counties into account. As you can see, there is a large amount of false information being touted in this debate. But, as rational human beings, we can research the facts behind the facts, so to speak, and find which fact are true. With the advent of Mothers Day, there are plans for a "Million Mothers March" to continue in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., but this time the aim will be to fight a Constitutional right, not to define one. Mothers who have been reading this, please research your facts, make an educated decision. Live with the truth, not a lie. Guns are an even greater help to women than men, as has been proven by many studies (contained also in "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott). A gun, kept in a wise place in a house, is the ultimate deterrent. There are thousands upon thousands of stories about how a gun in the house has saved the lives of children, whole families. The death of any little child is heartrending. And the fewer young to be subjected to early deaths, the better for all. When the criminal comes into your house at 12 am, do you want the gun to be in his hand, or yours. If it is not in yours, it will most definitely be in his, and he has no compunction about using it. Let us think through this debate. For if we really, truly take all the true facts, there is no question. If we pass laws, who will obey them? The law-abiding, the good, the free citizens. Do law breakers keep the law? No. Mothers, understand this: If the gun is not in your hand, it WILL be in the hand of your attacker. Need I say more?
Copyright 2000, Matthew J. Bedford |
|
|