Why Conservatives Are Willing to Be Called Crazy Gun Owners

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.”

Liberals believe this wording only protects gun ownership rights within State militias—
the equivalent to today’s National Guard. In contrast, Conservatives focus on the right of
the people. “You don’t uphold the constitution,” says the conservative. “You’re crazy,”
says the liberal. “Call me crazy if you want,” the conservative responds. “Removing guns
from citizens will not reduce crime.”

Who is right in this argument? Some would say none. However, there are solid reasons
why conservatives are willing to be called crazy gun owners.

Most arguments for removing guns from citizens ignore trends seen in other nations
where procuring a legal firearm is extremely difficult. What are these trends? How do
they make conservatives bold in their defense of gun ownership rights?

Crime Rates

An article written by political blogger Dale Hansen for the Detroit News, claims
conservatives are delusional when they suggest that gun shootings “have gone down in
America since 1950, only one, or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones.” He
claims this is a ‘fact free’ defense. Hansen points to the shootings at Fort Hood and
Washington Naval Base as proof that shootings do occur in non-gun-free zones. So he
argues the presence of guns isn’t a deterrent.1

What he ignores is this. Conservatives recognize that guns don’t always prevent gun
crimes. There are three reasons they argue against stricter gun control laws. 1) The type
of person whom the strict controls are meant to target perpetrated few of the mass
shootings we’ve seen recently. 2) Implementing gun control laws that take racial or 2
religious leanings would violate the first amendment. The recent Pasadena shootings
could make such a threat very real. 3) Mass shooting perpetrators appear to choose gunfree
zones over zones where guns are allowed.3

What would happen if only a select few were allowed to own handguns? What has
happened in the U.K. appears to answer that. In 1997, legislation banned the ownership
of handguns. Within 10 years, violent attacks soared 77%. With handguns available, there
are only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the U.S., while there are 2,034 violent
crimes per 100,000 in the U.K. The U.K. is the “violent crime capital of Europe” 4
screams the Telegraph.5

Europe, with its stricter gun regulations, still had three out of the worst six school
shootings on record.6

“Do you want to be like them?” asks the Conservative. “Call me crazy, but I don’t want
to see America follow suit.”

Criminals Will Be Criminals.

Will removing guns from private citizens really reduce crime? Liberals say, “Absolutely.”
Conservatives say, “No, because the criminal element won’t respect the laws.”
MintPressNews.com says neither side is right. In “The Facts That Neither Side Wants to
Admit About Gun Control,” Justin King points to the long-term statistics for murder in
countries who have banned handguns. In the UK, murders spiked to eventually fall back
to pre-ban numbers over 15 years.7

In Ireland, which banned firearms in 1972, homicides shot up from pre 1972 rates of .01 –
.06 per 100,000 people to 1.6 per 100,00 in 1975. It subsequently dropped to 0.4, rising
gradually to 1.4 by 2007. Australia didn’t see much change in murder rates after it banned
guns in 1996.

This argument fails to consider total violent crimes, not just those involving guns.
In a very interesting twist on his argument, King points out the real reason he believes
gun control will never work in America. Everything a crook needs to manufacture a 12-
gauge shotgun or a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun is available at Home
Depot. If criminals are going to pursue crime anyway, they are going to build their own
guns or get them on the black market.

Anyone who has worked in prison knows that criminals are incredibly inventive. Banning
guns isn’t going to stop crime. However, staring down the barrel of a handgun is a
deterrent for 3 out of 5 convicted felons polled.8

Conservatives say, “Call me crazy, but I prefer to choose whether a gun is part of my
crime prevention and protection strategy.


Which one would you prefer to have if someone has broken into your home? A gun or
911? Even in this age of cell phones at most bedsides, there’s no guaranteeing a 911 call
will bring you assistance soon enough to save your life.

A USA Today opinion piece by John R. Lott Jr. tells the story of Joel Myrick, an assistant
high school principal in Pearl, Miss. Until 1995 he always carried his permitted handgun
at school. When schools became mandated no-gun-zones, he stopped carrying it in school
but kept it accessible in his vehicle. When his school came under attack in October 1997,
he retrieved the gun and stopped the attacker, who was fleeing the scene—11 minutes
before police arrived.9

Liberals may argue Myrick wasn’t a hero at all. Two women lay dead and seven others
lay wounded. Conservatives ask, “Would a gun have stopped Luke Woodham before he
harmed so many?”

In addition, self-defense techniques can be very effective in a one-on-one attack.
However, as soon as it’s two against you, a gun quickly becomes the one form of
protection that can equalize the odds. FBI statistics suggest that states who have adopted
concealed carry laws have also seen a drop in violent crimes.

Liberals argue there’s no way to prove the crime reduction is connected with concealed
carry. Could this argument be compared to the arguments made by cigarette
manufacturers that a link between cancer and smoking couldn’t be proven?

Conservatives prefer to say, “I’m not waiting for proof there’s a correlation. Let me have
my gun.”


Comments are closed.