I am very much a "Pro Gun" person.  I am not a militant or a survivalist or a member of any of those fringe organizations, however I feel strongly that the citizens of this country have a right to protect themselves and that the efforts of the Anti Gun activists, movements and organizations to remove this right from me and others like me is not only unethical and immoral, it is inexcusable. They foster efforts that would take something away from us, however they offer nothing whatsoever in return. They argue that "Guns Cause Violence".  To me that is like saying that "Flies Cause Garbage".  It isn't the guns causing the violence, it is our society that causes the violence.  Guns are only tools, and if you take them away the violent people will simply use a different tool.
The opinions expressed on this page are simply that, my own personal opinions. Every effort has been made to obtain correct facts and observations however the author will not be held liable for any errors or omissions.
In several places within this document, references are made to a paper written by John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes entitled "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement". Whether you are Pro Gun or Anti Gun I would strongly recommend that you download this document from This Link and read it. If you feel that citizens having firearms is an inducement to crime, this paper may change your mind.
ARGUMENT: GUNS KILL PEOPLE!
ANSWER: Do they? A gun laying on a table or in a gun cabinet or holster is no more able to kill, injure, or otherwise harm anyone or anything than a hammer, brick, or carton of milk. A gun is an inanimate object, a lump of steel, it is not an intelligent killing machine. It requires a human presence to be able to cause any sort of harm or injury. A gun can be left alone for hundreds of years and it will never cause any sort of harm. It is only when a human decides to pick it up or disturb it that harm can be caused. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a single recorded instance of a firearm causing harm without the intervention of a human. The old adage that "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People" is TRUE, it is not a gimmick or a bumper sticker slogan, it is a TRUE FACT.  The pro-gun people keep saying this and the anti-gun people keep ignoring it, but the fact remains that it is TRUE!
   
ARGUMENT: Guns are WEAPONS and should not be allowed to exist!
 ANSWER: Webster's dictionary defines "Weapon" as: 

Pronunciation: 'we-p&n 
Function: noun 
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn 
Date: before 12th century 
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy 
2 : a means of contending against another 

"something used to injure, defeat, or destroy" ... Well, that could ONLY be limited to guns. It could certainly not be expanded to include bottles, sticks, stones, knives (ooops, that one was included in the definition), bats (well, that could be construed as a "Club" which was included in the definition), ice picks, razor blades, cigarette lighters, screw drivers, hammers, wrenches, books, staplers, car keys, ropes, ink pens, rings, belts ... Gee, this list is pretty much endless ... guess if we are going to outlaw guns simply because they are weapons then there are a few more things that are going to have to go on the list as well.
   
ARGUMENT: That wasn't what I meant! Guns are weapons that can kill from a distance.
 ANSWER: So "Distance" is the criteria by which a dangerous weapon is defined. Well, that would certainly preclude items such as baseballs, knives, stones, or anything else that could be thrown, wouldn't it? Oh, guess we'd better include things like cars, trucks, motor cycles, skateboards and things like that on the list as well. 

Why is it that "Guns" are always and inevitably singled out as being "Killers"? Is it because they make noise? Is it because they are bright and shiny? Or is it because in your mind they have simply become the incarnation of all things evil? A weapon of any type is a mental definition. ANYTHING can be a weapon, ANYTHING. A soda straw can be just as dangerous as a firearm, it all depends on the person using it.
   
ARGUMENT: Guns have only one purpose, and that is to kill.
 ANSWER: You are absolutely right there. There is no telling how many paper targets I've killed over the years. And just between you and me, I've also killed a lot of tin cans to (I even shot a watermelon once, but don't tell anyone). Funny thing though, I have never shot a human being and I hope I never have to. 

Keep in mind that your argument does not differentiate between defense and offense. If we take your argument at face value, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill another human being, then you are not recognizing this difference. You have convinced yourself that the only use of a firearm is as an offensive weapon and not a defensive one. Nor are you realizing the deterrent value of defensive firearms. A gun does not have to be fired at all to be a deterrence to a crime; on the contrary, in most cases it need only be present. Quoting from page 3 of John R. Lott's paper "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement" (the entire paper is available at This Link) "National polls indicate that people use guns defensively against criminal attacks somewhere between 760,000 and 3.5 million times per year". DEFENSIVELY .... NOT OFFENSIVELY.
   
ARGUMENT: But there are more people killed with guns than anything else except vehicles!
 ANSWER: Yeah, right ..... 

Accidental Firearms-Related Deaths Compared to Other Causes of Accidental Death (1997) 

1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths 
2. Falls: 14,900 deaths 
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths 
4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths 
5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths 
6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths 
7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths 
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths 
9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900 
Total deaths: 93,800 (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts) 

Don't believe the statistics?  OK, here is a link to the page at the  National Safety Council so you can see for yourself. (Note:  NSC has apparently removed the page referred to above.  The closest I can find now is This Link which is the "Report On Injuries In America, 2001".  It is important to note that the word "Firearms" does not show up on the page ANYWHERE)

Seems to me that the only thing that causes FEWER deaths in a year is poisoning by gases and vapors. Additionally, this table does not indicate how many of those 1,500 were in self-defense, nor does it indicate how many were gang-related or caused by persons engaged in criminal activities shooting each other.
   
ARGUMENT: But 1,500 people dead from firearms is not acceptable!
ANSWER: And 43,200 from vehicles is OK? Well, we certainly couldn't expect people to drive less, that might infringe on someone's rights! Or how about 10 times as many from falling (perhaps they were all just naturally clumsy) or nearly 6 times as many from poisoning (even WITH the damn child-proof caps that people whined for) or nearly 3 times as many from drowning (guess recreation is OK as long as it doesn't involve guns) or twice as many from swallowing things (probably the fault of the companies that made the things the people swallowed or of the government for not providing a Swallow Supervisor to live with them and make sure they didn't swallow anything dangerous). 

Grow up people! This is the real world. I'm sorry for the families of those 1,500 but I'm a lot more sorry for the families of the remaining 92,300 that nobody seems to be too worried about.  If you are going to start banning things that are dangerous then you need to start a lot closer to the top of the list.
   
ARGUMENT: It is arguable that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not mean the individual person has the right to keep an bear arms, but that it was intended to mean the Military and Law Enforcement forces.
ANSWER: In some cases this may be an arguable statement, however the state of Tennessee, at least, has seen fit to clarify the Second Amendment to resolve any question. The Second Amendment to the 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."

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Article I, Section 26 reads: 

"That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

Note that it reads "CITIZENS OF THIS STATE" and makes no mention of the word Militia.  Tennessee recognizes the right of the CITIZEN to keep and to bear arms.
   
ARGUMENT: It has been argued that the Constitution of the United States also guaranteed slavery, however we did away with that!
ANSWER: It took a civil war to abolish slavery. Are you ready to go through that again?
   
ARGUMENT: Let the Police handle the criminals. Citizens do NOT need to be armed! (or I think only the Police should be armed with guns!)
ANSWER: Ask a police officer, ANY police officer, when the last time they managed to be on the scene of a crime before it happened was. I have a lot of admiration for our law enforcement officers, they have a job that I would not like to have, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time. In reality, and they will be the first to admit this fact, they only get to a crime scene AFTER the crime has been committed because it is only then that someone calls and makes them aware of the fact that a crime has been committed. How can they possibly be aware of the fact that someone is going to be mugged on the way to their car, or the fact that a burglar is about to break into your home in the middle of the night, or the fact that a criminal is preparing to attack someone walking down the street. THEY CAN'T! They only find out AFTER the crime has taken place and then it is too late for the victim.
   
ARGUMENT: Hire more police officers to compensate for the lack of "Armed Civilians"
ANSWER: Great idea! We should have more police officers. However please keep in mind that in Tennessee alone there are over 73,000 "Civilians" who have permits to carry firearms. If we assume that the average salary of a police officer is $40,000 a year then simple multiplication tells us that the if the taxpayers of Tennessee are going to replace those 73,000 "Armed Citizens" with 73,000 police officers then they are going to have to carry the burden of over $2,920,000,000 per year simply for the added salaries.  This does not include the new police cars that will be needed or the administrative staff increases to handle the additional officers or the new police stations.
   
ARGUMENT: There is no proof that having "Gun Toting" civilians running around reduces violent crime.
ANSWER: On the contrary, there is statistical proof that states that have enacted "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws have experienced a significant reduction in instances of violent crime. For the skeptics or those who prefer to come to their own conclusions, the entire text of this paper can be downloaded from This Link. Quoting from page 9 though, "Tables 3 and 4 look more closely at the 14 states that adopted shall issue laws between 1977 and 1995. (No state has ever repealed this law.) Table 3 shows a sharp drop in multiple murders and injuries per 100,000 persons after the passage of a shall issue law. Murders fell by 89% and injuries by 82%." (emphasis added) I suggest you download the entire paper and read it for yourself.
   
ARGUMENT: I don't like the idea of "Civilians" going around carrying guns.
ANSWER: Neither do the criminals. If someone plans to commit a crime, but is unable to determine whether the intended victim or another person in the vicinity is carrying a firearm and may be able to interfere with his plans to commit the crime, that is a huge deterrent to the crime ever taking place. It is highly unlikely that any relatively sane person would try to rob someone if he knew that the chances were good that someone witnessing the crime was in a position to stop him. See the comment above regarding John R. Lott's paper. States that have enacted concealed carry laws for civilians have reported significant drops in violent crimes.
   
ARGUMENT: But children carrying guns to school  is WRONG!
ANSWER: I couldn't agree more. There is absolutely no excuse for a student to have a firearm, or any other type of weapon, in school. But what conceivable good is passing more gun control regulations going to do to resolve this problem? It is already illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to own or posses a firearm. If a person under the age of 18 carries a gun ANYWHERE he (or she) is already breaking a federal law so what good will passing more laws do?  I have heard that the "Children" who perpetrated the murders at Columbine High School in Colorado broke over 21 local, state, and federal laws before they even walked into the school.
   
ARGUMENT: So how do we keep guns out of the schools?
ANSWER: I wish they were all this easy.  That question is so obvious it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, and it can be answered in two words: PARENTAL CONTROL!  When parents take an interest in their children and know what they are doing, who they are with, and where they are, things like this cannot happen.  All of the people that I shoot with that have children have one thing in common:  They keep their guns LOCKED UP so the children cannot get to them.  Parents who leave firearms out where their children can get to them should be found guilty of any crime that their children commit.  There is absolutely no excuse for that, it is inexcusably negligent on the part of the parents.

Perhaps if the parents of some of these "Gun Toting" juveniles were doing their jobs as parents they might notice that their kids were carrying a gun to school.  Perhaps if they took as much of an interest in their children as some of them do their careers they might see what is going on under their own roofs.  You want to place blame on something?  Blame the parents who are supposed to be responsible (yes, RESPONSIBLE) for the actions of their children.  The responsibility of a parent for their child is not an option, it is a law.
ARGUMENT: Well, other countries have removed guns from private ownership.
ANSWER: They certainly have, and in every case the incident of violent crime has increased well in excess of the annual increase prior to their confiscation of private firearms. Criminals are not foolish, they are crafty and cunning and they do not give a damn about laws. Confiscation of privately owned firearms does NOT remove guns from the hands of criminals, it simply results in a situation where the criminals know full well that they are the only ones with a gun.
   
ARGUMENT: But we are a more evolved society now, and guns do not have a place here anymore.
ANSWER: I guess that's why I keep hearing stories on the news about muggings, home invasions, gang fights, burglaries, robberies, and so on.  I sure am glad I don't live in the society of 200 years ago when it was dangerous!  Maybe in your fantasy society your argument is true, but in my realistic society it doesn't stand up very well.
ARGUMENT: Responding to force with more force is not the appropriate action.
ANSWER: You have your opinion, I have mine.  I'm not a violent person but I won't be a victim either.  I will never intentionally instigate a confrontation, whether it involves a firearm or not, but if I have my gun with me I won't be a victim either.  And who knows, I might even be the guy that prevents you from being a victim.  Can you honestly, and I mean HONESTLY, state that if you were being robbed or if someone was trying to kill you that you would not welcome some assistance?
ARGUMENT: OK, then what CAN be done about gun-related crimes?
ANSWER:
  1. If a child takes a firearm into a school, a crime has been committed.  If a crime has been committed, someone is responsible and has to be held responsible.  If we are not going to punish the children for carrying firearms to school then make the parents responsible for their children's actions. We cannot continue to pretend a crime was not committed, SOMEONE must be held accountable. It should be the juvenile, however if we are going to continue to pretend that juveniles are not to be held responsible for their actions then that only leaves the parents or guardians.
  2. Enforce the laws that are already in place. If someone who is not allowed to own or posses a firearm is found in possession of one, they go to jail. If someone attempts to purchase a firearm who is knowingly not allowed to do so, they go to jail. If someone is arrested for a crime in which a firearm was used, they go to jail. If someone purchases a firearm for someone who is not legally able to purchase it for themselves, they go to jail. If someone knowingly sells a firearm to someone who cannot legally own a firearm, they go to jail. The laws to prevent people who cannot own firearms from doing so are already in place, they simply need to be enforced.
  3. Enact stiff, mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a firearm or any other form of weapon.  The definition of the crime is already on the books, it is called "Assault With A Deadly Weapon".  If someone is convicted of this crime they serve a mandatory sentence with no chance of parole.
  4. Enact "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry laws in states that do not already have them. If a criminal plans to execute a crime, yet is unable to know whether the intended victim or another person in the vicinity is carrying a firearm, it is a major deterrent.
The bottom line is this: Get the weapons (notice that I said "Weapons" and did not limit it to guns) out of the hands of the criminals and enforce the laws that are already in place.  Make it plain that a crime committed with a weapon, any sort of weapon, will not be tolerated and the price that will be paid is going to be severe.  Right now there is no deterrent from using a weapon in the commission of a crime.  The criminal knows he (or she) will probably be back on the street in a matter of days or weeks.  The police catch them, the bleeding-heart liberals whine about the poor criminals being mistreated, the courts let them go.  The most crime free countries on this planet are not those with a lower concentration of firearms, but those where the criminals understand completely that if they are caught they are going to regret it.
ARGUMENT: What about gun related accidents.
ANSWER: There is no such thing as an "Accidental Discharge" of a firearm, a firearm cannot accidentally discharge, there is only a "Negligent Discharge" of a firearm.  There are several reasons for the negligence involved, but even so they all come down to one single fact: Someone left a loaded gun laying around.  The "Discharge" part may or may not have involved the person who loaded the gun in the first place.

Example 1 -- A child is playing with daddy's gun and it goes off.  Why was this child able to get to daddy's gun in the first place?  Because daddy is a negligent fool and left it where the child could get to it instead of locked up in a gun safe.

Example 2 -- Daddy is cleaning his gun and it goes off.  Why did it go off?  Because daddy is a negligent fool and forgot to check to see if it was loaded before he started cleaning it.

Example 3 -- "I was just looking at it and it went off all by itself!"  Don't EVER be stupid enough to believe this one.  Somebody loaded it and somebody pulled the trigger.

Example 4 -- I dropped my gun while climbing over a fence (or up a tree or across a ditch) and it went off.  1) Why were you climbing that fence / tree / ditch without unloading your firearm first? and 2) Why were you carrying your gun without the safety on?

Example 5 -- I didn't know there was anything behind the target!  WHY THE HELL NOT!  You are supposed to look BEFORE you shoot, not after!

Example xx -- If you can think of other examples there will always be some sort of negligence involved, pure and simple.

Firearms safety cannot be overemphasized but it can certainly be under-emphasized.  Firearms are not toys, and they must be treated with respect; first, last, and ALWAYS.  Those of us who shoot a lot understand this, and we do not tolerate or condone careless or unsafe operation of a firearm.

The cause of gun related "Accidents" is very simple.  They are all caused by negligence on the part of the gun owner, and can always be avoided.  If you own a gun you are responsible for its safe operation, storage, and use.  Nobody else, just you.  If someone gets hurt with your gun it is your fault.  If you want to eliminate gun related accidents, train and educate the gun owners because there is no excuse for a gun related "Accident".
Copyright © 1997-2008, Scott A. Craig, All Rights Reserved
Site Use and Privacy Limitations