I have tried to remain silent about this issue, but I cannot hold my tongue (or my typing fingers) any longer.  I am a strong believer in our Second Amendment right to bear arms.  I realize that this is a very controversial topic right now, but the lies and exaggerations that come out of the news every day, exploiting terrible tragedies like the Parkland, Florida shooting, are just horrendous.

The Founding Fathers intended for the Second Amendment to be our inalienable right.

We all know why those who want to disarm us use despicable tactics — like using the Florida shooting to make false claims — to further their agenda: because it partially works.  However, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that, statistically, guns are really the least of our problems.  Plus, why punish law-abiding citizens who own guns and far outnumber the criminals?  This logic would eventually lead us to living in rubber rooms wearing straightjackets because everything would be regulated based on the actions of the few who can’t comply with the rules of society.

California has a law that prohibits the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.  No criminal is going to care one bit about that law, so whom does it really affect?  Not the criminals, I’ll tell you that.  Every law-abiding citizen who owns and shoots guns could now face punishment just by owning a magazine that is legal in their state, but illegal in another, if they’ve taken it across the state border.  This law will not stop one bad guy.  Not one.

How about gun-free zones like certain college campuses?  If I were a bad guy, where would I do my worst: in a gun-free zone or somewhere I am more likely to encounter deadly force?  And if I were a student in a college class on one of the gun-free campuses and a shooter walked in, would I want someone who has a concealed carry permit to come to my rescue and shoot back, or would I want to just duck under the table and hope I am not one of the unfortunate ones to be killed?  The answers to these questions are so blatantly simple and straightforward that I wonder how anyone can even argue the points, yet people do it every day.

Let’s stop and use some common sense.  This is where the gun control people don’t want to hear any of it.  They don’t want to face the statistics that tell the exact opposite story about guns.  Check out this widely-shared Facebook post with some insightful statistics, fact-checked by our team, with our sources cited (our notes are in red).  If opponents really want to be knowledgeable about this issue, here’s where to start.

— Greg

Putting the gun-control debate into perspective

(A social media post [its author unknown], fact-checked by our team)

  • According to the Center for Disease Control, there are 36,000 gun-related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. (source) The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 36,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
  • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. (source)
  • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. (source)

The following data about gun violence per city was only verifiable by local news stations, which we consider to be an unreliable source.  However, the data presented is insightful in context of the larger debate.

Keeping the annual number of gun-related deaths in mind, here’s an additional breakdown of the remaining homicides pertaining to gun violence:

  • 480 homicides were in Chicago
  • 344 homicides were in Baltimore
  • 333 homicides were in Detroit
  • 119 homicides were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25 percent of all gun crime happens in just four cities.  All four of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves around 4,000 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state.  That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.

For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1 (Alabama is open carry).

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far?  California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific?  How about in comparison to other deaths?  All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime.

Robbery, death, rape, [and] assault are all done by criminals.  It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws.

That is why they are called criminals.

Now let’s take it one step further.  What about other deaths each year?:

  • 40,000+ people die each year from a drug overdose. Drugs and alcohol destroy by far more lives and families than guns. (source)
  • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). (source)
  • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. (source) You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
  • 633,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!  This is the leading cause of death in the United States. (source)

So, what is the point?

If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10 percent decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the annual number of gun-related deaths (including those pertaining to suicide or law enforcement).  A 10 percent reduction in medical errors would equate to 66 percent of the total number of gun deaths or four times the number of criminal homicides!

[These are] simple, easily preventable, 10 percent reductions!  So, you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?

It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments.  The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies.  It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution and must be preserved at all costs.

So, the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”