Seriously, do you really want to live in a place where only criminals and the government are armed?

Matt, I’m sorry about your friend but the numbers don’t lie, gun control wouldn’t have prevented her tragic death and may actually lead to more tragic deaths at the hands of criminals who have no regard for the law.

The reason the founding fathers put the right of the people to bear arms in the Constitution was so that we can defend ourselves against an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment is the only one that ensures the rest of them. If we, the people, are unable to rise up against oppression if the need ever arises, how do you expect to enjoy all of these freedoms that you are so fond of, including free speech which you used to write this article.

Admiral Yammamoto, the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor was once asked why he didnt follow through and invade the US mainland after he had wiped out the only military force between him and California. His response was that he had lived in the US as he attended college at Harvard and knew that most Americans had firearms and that the pople of this country possesed the power to stand up to invaders and oppressors.

Also, in this country to buy a firearm LEGALLY there is a system in place to conduct background checks, many places have a waiting period and many dealers wont sell to someone who looks/acts like they have a psychological defect. Yet, anyone cal walk into a K-Mart or Sports Authority and buy a baseball bat and beat someone to death., which in my opinion would be a much worse way to go than getting shot.

Crimes aren’t only committed with firearms, you can kill people with baseball bats and cars, but no one is trying to keep you from driving to a ball game. Would it be fair to outlaw baseball bats, all metal pipes, wrenches, cars, knives, axes, and hammers because SOME people use them for illegal activities. The obvious answer is no.

The right to life is a fundamental part of natural law, or if you prefer, a human right, and the ability to effectively defend one’s own life is essential to that right. If effective means of self defense like firearms are made illegal, a monopoly on force has been ceded to criminals and to the government alone.

Millions of Americans will not cede this right, whether or not the Second Amendment is repealed. Do you truly believe the government has the ability, or even the will, to disarm 80 million gun owners? It doesn’t matter, in any case — your cause is impotent and you simply do not have the numbers to take from us what is ours by right.

Weapons, all weapons are tools used to multiply the force an individual can project. Criminals rely on the use of force to infringe on the rights of others and the only thing that will stop this once it is in action is equal or greater force used to protect rights. This is where force multipliers create equality by multiplying the force of a 19 year old college student and an 80 year old senior citizen to both be equal to or greater than that of a 25 year old steroid abuser who seeks to harm them.

Studies done in Florida have shown that the average conceal carry individual is five times less likely than an average member of society to commit crimes. The reason is because these people think about their personal responsibility to both defend themselves and their loved ones and seek, at personal cost and inconvenience, to go through the process to carry legally. Thus they are by definition responsible law abiding individuals for simply going through the process. Interviews with inmates convicted of either burglary and armed robbery are less likely to target someone that they know or believe to be armed. Additionally according to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 there are an average of 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm used to stop a crime in action with almost 16% of the incidents being reported that the action saved a life.

As an aside here are the Gun Owners of America’s rankings for John McCain:
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

As you can see he has steadily scored below average marks and in the last four years has scored the lowest ranking possible.

I could go on but its my belief that this information will fall on deaf ears but if I am wrong please feel free to contact me and perhaps we can talk about actually productive means to save lives and preserve the natural rights that all humans enjoy.

I, personally, think the idea of repealing the 2nd ammendment is ridiculous. You appear to have great respect for Mr. Jefferson. He provided unreserved justification for the 2nd Ammendment when he wrote, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Two more of my friends have died in car accidents since Bryson died. Nobody talks about outlawing cars. I’ve met several vicitms of severe stabbings. Nobody talks about outlawing knives. 3,000 people died on September 11 because of box cutters… See the pattern?

I think guns envoke stronger resistance because cars, knives and boxcutters have clearly positive use, and a gun’s ONLY purpose is to produce bodily harm to something living. The thing we have to keep in mind, as Jefferson reminded us, is that they serve in our defense more than they ever serve against us. That idea rings true today, even in an unbiased evaluation.

The Centers for Disease Control estimated under Bill Clinton’s term that guns are used legally in self-defense around 1.5 million times annually. Given the most generous estimates that say that guns injure as many as 100,000 people in crimes annually, we can conclude without doubt that the balance of guns’ net effect on society is positive.

I understand that there are strong feelings about this issue. Many people simply hate the idea of guns. I do too. When I take mine with me when I go somewhere, I hope and pray that I won’t have to use it… but I still take it. I take it because I know I’ve changed the odds in my favor by having it. I’m 15x more likely to use that gun in my own defense, or the defense of someone else than to be the victim of a crime involving someone else’s gun.

Please take pause to consider the real facts behind gun ownership. The National Academy of Sciences did a study entitled Firearms and Violence, in which they failed to find a single gun control regulation that ever reduced crime. Some may point out that they also were unable to validate John Lott’s pro-gun study, but reading the dissent in the appendix reveals that there was at least one member who believed his results were valid. The only way to call them into question is to remove control variables, as we, the academically inclined, are well aware is unacceptable.

The bottom line here is that every credible academic study favors greater civilian gun ownership. Those studies conclude that the impact to society is neutral at the absolute worst, and given neutrality, shouldn’t we favor freedom? Jefferson would.