We Are the Ones We Are the Guns

Schoolhouse shootings have dominated the news cycle and the mutual theme anti-gunners limited is how gun control can somehow solve the problem.

The near common gun-control arguments of today go something like this: "These shootings would stop if we banned AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles; raised the minimum age for firearm ownership; and/or created tougher gun laws."

These are emotion-based arguments and volition do null to solve the problem. In fact, they can even brand the problem worse while infringing on the liberties of Americans. Let'southward explore, and debunk, x of the nearly mutual gun-control arguments.

1. The Second Subpoena Only Gives the Right to Own Guns for Utilize in a Militia

Our Second Amendment reads:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Land, the right of the people to proceed and bear Artillery, shall non be infringed."

Our Constitution does non give united states any rights. Rather, it affirms rights that we already have in order to safeguard them. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear artillery" isn't given by the linguistic communication in a higher place. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which exists outside of the Constitution, is protected from infringement.

The militia is mentioned as the goal for the protection of our right to continue and acquit arms — information technology is not a requirement. A helpful analog from an unknown writer goes similar this:"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the correct of the people to read and compose books, shall not be infringed."

In this instance, it should be easy to meet that the right to read and compose books is not reserved merely to those that are registered voters or well-educated. Instead, the goal is a well-educated electorate, for which tools of education are needed. Likewise, our right to go on and bear arms is protected in the event a well-regulated militia is needed to defend our country.

2. The 2nd Amendment Just Applied to Muskets

Anti-gunners often merits that "modern/rapid-fire" arms are not protected. This statement assumes that muskets were the only blazon of arms in existence when the Second Amendment was written, and therefore our founding fathers never intended our protections to extend to modern firearms.

First, repeating rifles were in existence for more than 100 years before our Beak of Rights were included in our Constitution. Second, muskets were military-class firearms. Our founding fathers wanted to protect our power to overthrow a tyrannical regime, which would include the capability to match whatever artillery an opposing military machine possessed.

Tertiary, if this argument were valid, then smartphones and social-media would not be protected as forms of speech under the First Subpoena, considering these "modern/rapid-fire" forms of advice were non around dorsum then.

three. Criminals Won't Have Guns if We Ban Them

Simply, law-abiding citizens will obey the law and criminals won't. That's how life works. After all, that'due south the definition of a criminal: someone who doesn't obey a law. Keeping guns out of criminal'due south hands because they've been banned will exist but as successful as our ban on crystal meth.

If the offense of, and penalty for, murder doesn't stop criminals from conducting mass shootings, neither volition another law. Equally an case, bombs are already illegal. However, neither the penalty for murder nor the penalty against making bombs has stopped the Oklahoma city bombing, the Boston marathon bombing, or the series bomber in Austin.

Not just will a gun ban non work, it will ensure that the only people with guns are criminals.

four. AR-15s/Sure Semi-auto Rifles Should Be Banned

Again, criminals won't obey laws. The France mass shooting mentioned to a higher place was carried out where those types of rifles were already banned.

Likewise, rifles, although popularized by the media, are non regularly used in trigger-happy crimes. In fact, according to the FBI, hammers and blunt instruments are used in more murders than rifles are.

Rifles accept been used in some recent mass shootings. However, the shooters at Maryland, Ft. Hood, and Virginia Tech did non apply rifles. Fifty-fifty if they did, rifles are but a tool used by a murderer, much like box cutters past the terrorists on 9/11.

Besides, vehicles are most commonly used by boozer drivers and those texting while driving to kill people. No, these people don't have a murderous intent, however, many more deaths are caused in this manner and it is nevertheless the error of the person and not the tool used.

v. Nosotros Must Raise the Rifle Purchase Age to 21 Years Former

Currently, under federal law, an xviii-twelvemonth-old tin can legally buy a rifle or shotgun, just a purchaser must be 21 years one-time for a handgun. Either 18-year-olds are adults or they aren't. If an 18-year-old is not responsible plenty to buy a burglarize or shotgun, then he or she isn't responsible plenty to vote, join the military, drive a automobile, or be treated as an adult in crimes.

Raising the minimum age to purchase firearms wouldn't have inverse 29 of the xxx worst mass-shootings in U.S. history. Twenty-vi of the 30 were committed by someone 21 years of age or older, 1 (No. 4) was committed by a 20-year-old who stole his mother'south firearms, another (No. 7) was committed by students who used a pistol they couldn't legally buy, and a third (No. 22) was committed by a 16-year-old who couldn't buy any firearms legally.

The most recent shooting in Maryland was committed by a student with a handgun and who was 18 years old. It is nevertheless some other instance of a minimum age police force not working.

6. Gun-Free Zones Are Safe Spaces

No. In fact, the opposite is true. Gun-gratuitous zones are a magnet for mass shooters — well-nigh every mass shooting we have experienced has occurred in a gun-costless zone.

Information technology is logical that these monsters prefer unarmed victims. In fact, almost of the shooters are stopped once they are confronted with armed resistance. If politicians believe that gun-free zones piece of work, why practice they hide behind armed security themselves?

seven. Places With Strict Gun Laws Don't Have Shooting Issues

Not truthful. Take a look at Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. In the year 2016 alone, Chicago saw 762 gun deaths and experienced 4,331 shootings.

Or French republic, where there were 532 casualties from mass-shootings in 2015. As a comparison, America, experienced 527 casualties from mass-shootings over an viii-yr flow from 2009 to 2016.

Those numbers mean that France, which has incredibly strict gun control and is one-fifth of our population, experienced eight times the amount of casualties from a mass shooting in i yr. Clearly, 2015 was an anomaly for France. All the same, the comparison is used to show that gun control does non prevent gun violence.

Likewise, note the rampant vehement crime in much of Europe, which generally maintains very restrictive gun laws.

8. Reducing Guns Will Reduce Gun Violence

For the reasons above, we know that this isn't true. However, even if it were true, our goal should be to reduce all violence. Completely eradicating gun violence wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Boston marathon bombing, the series bombings in Austin, Texas, or other violent crimes.

According to FBI crime stats, in 2004, afterward the 1994 federal "assault weapons" ban ended, trigger-happy criminal offense really fell. In fact, vehement law-breaking has fallen by more l percent since 1997, when the ban was in upshot. Since 2004, sales and ownership of AR-15-style rifles have skyrocketed. Thus, contradicting claims made past gun control components, violent criminal offense vicious when the number of guns endemic by the population significantly increased.

Often Commonwealth of australia is used as an instance for how banning guns works. Yes, their firearm-related crime went down, but their violent crimes, to include sexual set on, kidnapping, manslaughter, and robbery, have all stayed the same or increased.

Also, gun restrictions tin lead to an increment in violence when law-abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves. Everywhere would exist a gun-gratis zone.

9. Only Law Enforcement Should Have Guns

When seconds count, law enforcement is often minutes away. According to the Section of Homeland Security, "the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.v minutes. In contrast, the average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes."

A firearm is the all-time method of cocky-defence for a single mother defending her children from a domicile intruder. If constabulary officers need firearms because of the violent people they encounter, so surely boilerplate citizens need firearms even more. We're the ones who must face up the fierce people without backup and while the criminal offence is beingness committed.

Additionally, the statement that just the authorities should have guns defies the purpose behind our Second Amendment protections. Information technology is baffling how many of the people who vilify law enforcement are likewise the same ones insisting that just law enforcement should accept guns.

10. High-Capacity Magazines Should Exist Banned

In addition to trying to ban guns, anti-gunners also effort to vilify another inanimate object: "high-capacity magazines." Typically, the most popular target of their ire are magazines with the adequacy to hold more than 10 rounds of armament, specially AR-fifteen-style magazines. They claim that by stopping to reload, a mass-shooter can be stopped.

The facts don't support this. One of the Columbine shooters used 10-round magazines, and the Virginia Tech shooter used generally ten-circular magazines. The shooter from the contempo Florida school shooting, although he had an AR-xv-fashion rifle, used x-circular magazines to commit the crime. And Maryland, where the virtually recent school shooting occurred, already has laws banning the purchase of "loftier-capacity" magazines.

The mutual theme among almost of these arguments is that more laws volition make u.s. safer. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Criminals don't obey laws. Instead, peradventure it's finally time to realize that gun-costless zones don't work and that nosotros are our own all-time defense against being a victim.

Ryan Cleckner is a former special operations sniper and a electric current firearms attorney, university lecturer, entrepreneur, and all-time-selling author of "The Long Range Shooting Handbook." His near recent projects include online training to help people get an FFL and helping to educate gun owners at GunUniversity.com.