I can't speak for all the Bible-thumping, gun-toting, freedom lovers out there. I can only speak for myself. This is a response to the letter, "Reasonable regulations," which was published on January 21, 2013.
As a proud gun owner, my decision to own and carry weapons is not based on emotion. It is based on logic and reason. I acknowledge that there are people that have a tough-guy, power trip complex. Most of us are not that guy.
The Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution does protect your rights, and mine, to own firearms. I will give you that, but the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution also protects your rights, and mine, to carry firearms.
Diluted varieties of gun-control, such as registration, licensing, and background checks only apply to law-abiding citizens. They do not apply to criminals, who do not obey the laws anyway.
A firearm, regardless of capacity, caliber, overall length, and type can do nothing by itself. It can only be conformed to the heart of the person that is handling it.
Limiting the lethality of firearms contradicts itself. Any firearm can be extremely lethal. The .22 long rifle, the first weapon that most people learn to shoot with, is perfectly capable of penetrating a human skull at 300 yards. I think most people would consider that to be extremely lethal.
In regard to imposing magazine capacity limits, here are my thoughts. If the higher-ups in the gun-control movement would require that armed guards, law enforcement officers, and our soldiers to carry low capacity weapons, they would at least sound slightly more believable. If high capacity firearms have no use for defense, why do the police and military need them?
I prefer to follow people that lead by example. This is not emotional. It is common sense.
We have all heard it said that armed citizens do not deter crime. The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study in the early 1980s, in which they interviewed 1,874 imprisoned felons, across ten states. This study disagrees. Here are a few of the figures from the Wright and Rossi Department of Justice's study of the deterrent effect of armed citizens upon criminal behavior.
- 88 percent agreed with the statement, "A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one."
- 81 percent agreed that a "smart criminal" will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
- 74 percent indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings because of fear of being shot.
- 57 percent said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
- 40 percent said that they were deterred from committing a particular crime because they believed that their potential victim was armed.
There is nothing difficult about this. Let's think like a criminal for a brief moment. Let's assume that you are going to rob a business. You are sizing up your potential targets.
You somehow manage to narrow your selection to three potential targets. The security detail is lax or non-existent at all three places, but one of them has a sign on the door that says, "No Weapons Allowed."
It does not take much to figure out that the Gun-Free-Zone is going to be your best option out of the three. I think the reasons can speak for themselves.
Depending on where people live, four-legged predators might pose a greater threat potential than their two-legged counterparts.
Personally, I prefer a three part gun-control system.
1.) Use both hands to control your weapon.
2.) I want to have total control over my guns and nobody else's.
3.) I want everybody else to have total control over their own guns and not mine.
Anthony Joseph Schabel