Gun control myths have and continue to mislead many of my fellow Americans into believing that more gun control legislation is required in order to keep everyone safe. A closer examination on the issue however will show how gun control measures fall short every time, and that no amount of gun control will deter criminals. The following is some of the popular myths gun control advocates love to cite.
Fact: "Assault rifles are used in barely one-percent of all homicides. Most firearms-related homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles. Statistics aside for a moment, that is a reasonable conclusion as a criminal would most likely need to be able to conceal his weapon, and rifles tend to be bulky and not easy to conceal. It is also worth pointing out that a good portion of the homicides by firearm are suicides.
As for owning rifles such as an AR-15 for home defense, rifles are generally more accurate and having a weapon at the ready that holds thirty rounds could come in handy if there are multiple home invaders. One must also take into account for any possible missed shots as well, so with that in mind thirty rounds is not an over amount.
Fact: Again, most firearm-related crimes are carried out with handguns, not rifles, and most revolvers only hold between six to eight rounds.
Gun control advocates often claim that groups like the National Rifle Association somehow control elected leaders from both the Democrat and Republican parties via campaign contributions, but this claim is absurd when one takes into account gun control legislation that has passed in certain states (California and New Jersey come to mind), some of which is rather restrictive such as limits on magazine capacity. Likewise, there are plenty of gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown For Gun Safety and March For Our Lives which constantly push for more gun control legislation, so that's a two-way street there.
This is patently false, and actually gun control is rooted in racism. During and shortly after the Civil War, those who believed in and fought for the right to keep slaves were vehemently against any slave having access to firearms, as armed individuals wouldn't make for good slaves. That is perhaps the most absurd claim.
Simply put, law abiding gun owners will obey the law and criminals will not. That's why they are called criminals. Just how successful have the bans on recreational drugs been? Did outlawing abortion procedures prevent all abortions from occuring? I think you get the picture. Not only would a gun ban not work, it would ensure the only people with guns are the criminals.
No, and in fact the opposite is true. In the last twenty or so years, just about every mass shooting we have experienced occured in what was supposed to be a gun free zone. Just think about all the shootings that occured in schools, all of which were supposed to be gun free zones. It is only logical to conclude that would be shooters prefer their victims to be unarmed, and most shooters are stopped swiftly once they are confronted by armed resistance. The politicians who claim gun free zones are safe spaces crack me up, as most of them have armed security guards.
That's not true, just look at the city of Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the number of shootings in Chicago have risen sharply this year- [nbcchicago.com]. As always though, criminals pay no regards to the laws whatsoever.
I find it ironic that those who advocate for gun control measures are the very same people now who are calling to defund police departments across the country, the irony is really split thick there. When a home invasion in the middle of the night occurs and every second counts, the police are often minutes away, and that's especially true for those who live in rural areas. If police officers need guns due to the potentially violent people they could encounter, then surely average citizens need guns as well, as someone breaking into your residence in the middle night most likely didn't break in to leave you presents. Lastly, the argument that only those employed by the Government or police should have guns defies the purpose of the Second Amendment in the Constitution, which I will get to more in a moment.
It pays to keep in mind that at one point in their lives every single individual who is now considered a criminal had a clean record, and thus would have been legally able to own firearms. Background checks are all too easy to fool, someone with ill intentions could be thinking about acting out an act of violence, but as long as they haven't committed any criminal offense they would still be able to obtain a gun. I equate background checks to the likes of a placebo, it gives the feeling of doing something about the situation, but in reality you aren't accomplishing much.
I saved the best one for last, as this is perhaps the favorite argument of gun control advocates. The Second Amendment 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." Did you notice the commas in that statement? They are there for a specific reason, the first half stated a militia is necessary to preserve the security of a free state, while the second half stated the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not ever be infringed upon. A broader definition of the term arms means anything that could be used as a weapon and any ammunition that said weapons would require to use. It's that last part, shall not be infringed, that gun control advocates conveniently love to leave out.
Another related argument the gun control advocates tend to fall back on is that the Second Amendment only applied to muskets. I can't help but wonder though... does that mean the First Amendment right to free speech only applies to the printing press, since there was no such thing as the Internet or social media back then? Repeating rifles were already in existence at the time the Bill Of Rights was established. I'd recommend researching the Puckle Gun [en.m.wikipedia.org] and the Ferguson Rifle. The [Belton Flintlock]( [en.m.wikipedia.org] is another example proving the concept of repeating firearms existed prior to the Bill Of Rights.
The gun control debate is perhaps at its most heated point now, as more mass shootings make the headlines stirring up emotions. As is the case with any inanimate object, they are only as bad as the human beings that use them, people always have and continue to be the problem, not the guns. I think the recent events surrounding around the Covid-19 pandemic have somewhat turned the tide of the gun control debate in favor of the gun rights activists, as more and more of those who identify as liberal progressive have become first time gun owners due to fear of the unknown(s) during the pandemic.
Faced with defeat after defeat, the gun control advocates are now turning to one of their favorite weapons in the culture war, stigmatization. Policy is not enough, the outright shaming and ridicule of American gun owners is becoming more prevalent, with the end goal being to make private gun ownership a taboo thing. The spread of misinformation is what helped to create the current political rift in America, and the divide has only been growing bigger. Both sides of this debate clearly want a solution, a solution in which everyone benefits without the need to surrender up any rights, but little progress can be made when emotions and the "woke" cancel culture are factored into the equation.