The Need for Firearms and Freedom

Hello, my name is controversy, and I'm here to talk to you about guns.

My friends, you will find that in a world view directed by reason over emotion, level headedness over hot headedness, many things will come to light differently than you imagined.  This is a debate I've had several times, and even when the opposition had no platform, I was the bad guy.

I am a fan of firearms.  I am scared to death of firearms.  Each is an emotional stance based not in reality, but in isolated compartments.  Liking them or hating them is irrelevant.  Without getting too deep into another discussion, a discussion on liberty, I would like to say that without the possibility of forceful opposition, there is none.  A renaissance man must consider self reliance, for relying on others constantly breeds unnecessary dependency.  Dependency breeds individual weakness, and opens the door for oppression.  This is not an emotional platform, this is reality.

In the debate on firearms you have to look at data to understand reality.  Anecdotes and incidents are flavorful examples, but do not shed light on the whole picture.  Before I continue, let me say that each loss of life or health is a tragedy, a terrible price to those who knew and loved the individual(s) involved.  I am not degrading this fact, but it is an emotional fact, and has no further place in this debate.

Considering data, the world does not have a violence problem, and certainly does not have a firearms problem.  On statistical average, violent crime, including the much heralded terrorism, and also firearms violence is less than one percent of all crime.  Now, this is to say that despite the differences in countries' laws, violent crime is consistently below other forms of crime.  But you might be thinking that is terribly subjective, and many crimes on the books are not really crimes at all.  Okay, fair statement.  However, statistics do not filter unjust laws.  Let's look at it this way, violent crime directly affects fewer than one percent (that is, per capita) consistently.  Even in the murder Capitol of the world, Columbia.
Reference: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

One of the common misconceptions is that more guns equals more violence and death.  That is simply, demonstrably, not true.  Remember that correlation and causality are two different things.  It appears that the social climate has far more to do with violence than the availability of weapons.  Compare the statistics in the above link with the following:

Reference:  http://www.mibazaar.com/gunownership.html

Another question is of emotional stability.  Isn't is easy to just lose your temper and pick up a gun and shoot someone?  Well, as easy as it is to stab them, throw a lamp at them, drive a car into them, set something on fire...Violence can happen in many forms, and it is often unpredictable.  Many of the known serial killers of years past had nothing to do with firearms, and we didn't catch them until several people were dead.  Of course, these situations were planned, and not an emotional burst, but it goes to illustrate that violence can happen anywhere, and anyone can perpetrate it.  Many of the most violent people are people you'd never consider a threat just looking at them.  It does not take a gun to hurt someone, it takes motivation.  While we're on the topic of hurting people, how do you suppose a 100 pound woman will defend herself against a 225 pound assailant?  Or how about a healthy young adult male against a gang of thugs?  Perhaps these people should learn the venerable art of being a victim?  Or, perhaps, they should carry a gun.  A firearm is the only true equalizer in a mismatched physical conflict.  Martial arts are wonderful, but they do not fully equalize.  Found objects, while useful in sudden conflict, do not fully equalize.  The police?  No, I'm sorry.  The chance you will be able to dial 911 during a conflict is small, and even if you do, in the few seconds your adversary needs to take you out, the police are still getting in their cars.  It is the exception, not the rule, that help will be able to arrive and rescue you from harm.  Remember what I mentioned about dependency.  If you think you can depend on the police to resolve your conflicts, you may find yourself asking more than anyone can give.  I haven't even mentioned the criminals with illegally obtained firearms yet.  

Regulation is the stickiest aspect of this all.  More than anything else, people debate gun CONTROL, not the guns themselves.  Let me ask you this?  Does gun control work in Columbia?  Or how about Russia?  You can name any place that has laws against firearms, and I guarantee you can find an abundance of them off the books.  Laws are for honest people.  They're a lot like locks.  They only keep honest people honest.  If there is a law, there is someone willing to go around it.

Let's look at some numbers, and then we'll call it quits.  In a recent debate, I was given a statistic of 34 people killed by firearms daily in the United States.  I didn't fact check that, and that sounds high to me, but let's run the numbers.  34 deaths per day times 365 days per year equals 12,410 deaths attributed to firearms each year.  Now, if we divide 12,410 by the approximate 300,000,000 people who live in the United States, that comes out to about four hundred thousandths of a percent of the population shot to death each year.  Percentages that small are ignored by even the most fastidious of statisticians.  It is numerically insignificant, and does not represent any populational threat.  At the time of this writing, I live in Arizona, the last cowboy state, in reference to firearms freedom.  There is no registration, no licensing, and the firearm death rate, according to the most recent statistics, is 18 per 100,000. That's .00018%. In other words, statistically insignificant.

Reference:  http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The last thing to consider is a cross-reference.  On the books, alcohol attributable deaths come in at a whopping 75,000 per year.  That is more than six times higher than the above assumed 12,410.  Do you know what 6 times four hundred thousandths of a percent is?  STILL STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT!  Why is alcohol still legal?  One, because prohibition cause more people to be harmed in relation to alcohol, and two, because we consider people to be responsible enough to handle themselves while drinking.  And, you know what?  Most people can.  That's right.  People who are taught responsible use, respect, and have even a basic sense of social ethics and morality are responsible enough not wave around a loaded gun, not to point one, loaded or not, at anything they don't intend to destroy, and not to discharge a firearm without just cause.  We don't need more laws governing firearms, we need to allow people the basic right to defend themselves, and trust that they can do so.  We will deal with the bad seeds as they come along, like we always have.  


Additional reading:

An article about gun ownership from the CFIF:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

An article from the GOA:

http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

The homepage of the JPFO, a group of people who understand violent oppression, and the need to be able to defend oneself:

http://jpfo.org/

And a personal favorite, an article from a statist, a left winger, those people generally against guns, who happens to love the second amendment of the United States Constitution, and believes in the right to bear arms:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2...010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

Good Journey.