Letter from Mr. Conservative: The Truth About Guns – Debunking the Myths
Debunking Every Gun Myth – A Look at Gun Facts
2.5 Million times every year, or about 6,850 times per day, Law Abiding Citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals.
Statistically, 80 times more often guns are used to protect the lives of honest people, rather than to take innocent life.
Concealed carry laws have reduced murder rates by 8.5% in states that have enacted them. This means, that in states where Politicians vote against concealed carry laws, they are responsible for 8.5% of murders.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics & National Crime Victims Survey:
- 550 Rapes and 1,100 Murders are prevented EVERY DAY just by SHOWING a gun.
- According to the National Institute of Justice there are approximately 2 million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens.
Connecticut ALREADY HAD an Assault Weapons Ban, so how could implementing a National Ban have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy?
Some argue “Accidents with firearms kill kids, so we must have gun control laws” so we looked at All Accidental Deaths between 1999 and 2006:
- There were 60,684 accidental deaths in total. Unintentional firearm deaths were 980 of these.
- 8 times more people drowned to death and 36 times more people died in car accidents. — Ask yourself if more people died accidentally from firearms or if more peoples lives were saved due to responsible gun ownership?
According to the FBI:
- In 2011 323 people were killed using “Assault Weapons”
- In the same year 496 people were killed using hammers.
Guns may kill people, but evil does not exist within the mind of a gun, it exists within the hearts and minds of those who pull the trigger with evil purposes.
According to the FBI:
- 99.9% of all guns in America are not used in violent crimes.
- 99.8% of all guns are not used in crime at all.
- Only 1% of the time when a gun is being used in defense, does the criminal take the gun from the defender.
- Only 4% of guns used in crimes were obtained legally.
As such, if a gun ban is implemented, it could not, and will not stop these purchases, if we banned guns entirely, we could only hope to reduce crime using guns 4% in theory. In reality we would completely disarm law abiding citizens and leave them completely defenseless to criminals.
90% of crimes using guns occur in gun free zones.
We looked at over 100 different mass shootings that we found in various media reports, we found that the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police was 14.29, the average number of people killed when stopped by a civilian was 2.33
In 1976 Washington D.C. passed a major gun control law banning people from owning guns in their homes.
- After this the murder rate in D.C. went up 134%
- The murder rate across the nation went down 2%.
- It’s safe to assume criminals in D.C. didn’t turn in their guns.
- The D.C. Gun Ban was later overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
If you lived in a gun free zone, or you live somewhere where guns are banned, thus becoming a gun free zone, when someone breaks into your house, what do you think the result is?
Objectively, you will be handing over the responsibility of your and your families protection over to the government. So, you’ll call the police. The average response time for law enforcement to reach your house is 23 minutes across the United States. If someone breaks into your house, to hurt you and your family, what will realistically happen to you during those 23 minutes?
A question to ask yourself:
- Is your life worth protecting?
- THEN: If it is, then why don’t you deserve the right to own a gun to protect your life with?
- SO, THEN: Why would you trust someone else(a government employee) to own a gun to protect you, and not yourself?
Is Gun Control about reducing violence, or is it about – Control?
Under American occupation, every Iraqi family was allowed to keep a fully automatic firearm for protection. In America, fully automatics are already illegal, the government wants to ban semi-automatic firearms, which they define as “Assault Weapons” because they have “military characteristics”. Doesn’t that mean the government trusted Iraqi’s more than Americans to responsibly own firearms?
If guns cause violence, then in places where there are more guns, there should be more violence.
- In Switzerland, 1 out of every 2 citizens owns a gun, guns are carried in public freely.
- Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world.
Many think Conservatives are crazy for wanting to own a gun to defend against “government tyranny”. Some people believe that despite the above data, the right of gun owners to own guns needs to be matched with reasonable gun control and that the 2nd Amendment provides protections for hunters, that these guns are not for hunting.
Furthermore, others say that the 2nd Amendment was only for single shot muskets, and did not apply to any other guns.
The question is, are gun owners right in thinking that they need guns to defend against government tyranny?
Do citizens have a right to own guns that are of comparable combat utility as military guns?
An in depth analysis of the 2nd Amendment leads me to the following conclusions:
- There is no mention of hunting or target practice. Hunting was the equivalent of going to the supermarket, families hunted. Furthermore, back then there was no such thing as “shooting ranges”, lead used for musket balls was scarce and couldn’t be wasted.
- There is direct mention of a well regulated militia. There are also plenty of quotes about protection from tyranny, specifically government tyranny by the men who wrote The Constitution.
- The 2nd Amendment definitively can be read to define that citizens have a right to own “Light Infantry” weapons. That means they can own guns comparable to military light infantry. The Founders wrote the constititution, let them speak for themselves…
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …” Samuel Adams
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton
“The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin
Some argue in turn that this is from an outdated time, and that the threat of government killing their citizens is a threat that we no longer have to live with. They say that the constitution is out dated. Again, we turn to the evidence…
Political scientist R.J. Rummel looked at over 8,000 reports of government caused deaths in the 20th century and found that 262 million people were killed by their governments, only one sixth this amount were killed in war between nations.
Recently a White House white paper was leaked to the press which said that if an American citizen becomes a terrorist even if there is no proven intelligence he is planning an attack against the United States it is “legal, ethical, and wise” to use a drone strike against him instead of risking the lives of Americans to capture him, essentially depriving a citizen of their right to trial by jury.
The U.S. government has assigned to itself, the right to kill its own citizens, in violation of the constitution which was designed as law for it’s own self-restraint.
So, are Conservatives right to want to have the ability to defend themselves against government?
Obama: “If there’s one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”
If we want to save lives, we should look at the facts, and the facts say what they say, as documented above. Share this article, so that we don’t lose the 2nd Amendment due to media hype.
Written By Cyrus Massoumi – Editor & Founder of Mr. Conservative
Find Cyrus on Facebook here
If you don’t want gun control to pass then take a moment and send this to everyone you think could benefit from reading the facts.
You may also like to read:
- BREAKING: School Shooting In Florida
- Calif. Town Looks to Force Gun Owners to Provide Thumb Print to Government
- Senate’s Website Wrongly Says The Individual’s Right To Arms Under The 2nd Amendment Is “Debatable”
- Police Officer Told Not To Wear His Uniform Near His Daughter’s Elementary School Because Parents Were Scared
- Bill Maher: NRA’s Initials “Stand For Nuts, Racists, And Assholes”