Gun Control

Gun Control has always been a sore spot to me, because most gun control advocates miss the point. They attack the tool not the user. In their beliefs, I guess they think if there isn’t a gun, then violence goes away. One only has to look at the Middle Ages to see the fallacy of this. Violence was done on the innocent because they had no way to stop it. Might made right in those days, because only the wealth could afford the weapons. The gun has been called the “equalizer" for a very good reason. For a very small price, any person can have the same ability to defend or attack. A gun does not fill a single person with the desire to hurt another. (it does make it easier but it is even easier if the other person doesn't have a gun)

Robert Knight, director of CMI, puts forward a counter argument and points out several holes in the Gun Control argument:

Robert Knight, director of CMI, puts
forward a counter argument and points out several holes in the Gun Control
argument:
"In their zeal to repeal the Second Amendment," the report
indicates, "the media failed to inform their audience of at least four powerful
arguments against gun control:

-- "Comparisons between countries are not useful . Unfortunately, direct comparisons based solely on crime rates and gun laws tell very little about whether gun control actually works. Social scientists believe that gun control is only one of many factors that influence rates of violence.
--"Guns are frequently used to stop crimes. To the Founding Fathers, the right to bear arms for self-protection was essential if citizens were to be truly free, but this essential fact rarely saw the light of day in the mainstream media.
-- “Most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired. Like it or not, banning guns only takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making it easier for people with no respect for the law to attack their victims.
-- "Gun control laws have no proven effect. At worst, gun control laws leave law-abiding citizens defenseless before rapacious criminals, and at best, they may not affect violence at all."

I find the third one to be the most telling. One might believe that if hand guns were completely outlawed, eventually even the criminals wouldn’t have them eventually. I mean it has worked for meth and crack hasn’t? Criminals will always find a source whether it is a homemade zip gun or an illegal import from the black-market.

The only way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the desire to perform violence. Until that is done, there will be no progress in making a safer society.

Many have point to the tragedy at Virgina Tech as a reason for gun control but the fact that the campus was the pinnacle of gun control seems to be ignored. The campus is a gun free zone and that did nothing to stop the shootings. The criminal had the gun and the innocent did not.

Now on the oppoiste side of the arguement, giving all law abiding citizens a gun isn not the cure. Once again this is only treating a symtom and not the problem. Being an anti gun control advocate should carry with it a responsiblity to to address the real problems that face society. Dealing with the reasons that cause violence, what makes a person willing to kill another.

Glorifing violence in movies, music, video games and books does not help. Allowing crimes to be punished with a slap on the wrist, does not help. If anybody is really serious about doing anything about violence then dealing with the problem has to start where the problem is, the people.