Addressing the myths about guns

By Sam Jones, Columnist

Increasingly, the left attempts to discover new methods of gun confiscation in attempts to reduce gun violence in America. While gun violence affects thousands of people a year, the facts show that most gun control does not reduce the amount of gun ownership or violence. 

David Muir, a moderator of the September democratic primary debate, asked Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O’Rourke “Are you proposing taking away their guns?” O’Rourke shouted without hesitation, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” 

O’Rourke claimed that any weapon designed to kill on the battlefield would be banned from the general public during his presidency. 

This came only a month after a gunman took the lives of 22 people at a Walmart in O’Rourke’s hometown of El Paso, Texas. 

The desperate presidential candidate’s campaign swiftly made gun control a top priority an in attempt to increase support and donations. O’Rourke has shown heavy support for a federal buyback program, where the government would force law-abiding citizens’ to “sell” their guns to the government. 

Australia attempted a mandatory buyback system in 1996, and it has yet to show any progress of reducing the gun homicide rate. Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott found that the homicide rate was not impacted by this policy.

“Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback,” Lott said. “The trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons.”

The statistics surrounding mass shootings are tricky because it is difficult to define what a mass shooting is. According to Gun Violence Archive, a mass shooting is “one in which at least four people are injured or killed in one location, not including the suspect.”

However, there is often a debate about whether gun-related deaths that are linked to gang violence should be considered a mass shooting, creating confusion.

The reason is clear: the deranged killers want to put themselves in a position where they can murder as many as possible without facing armed resistance. In a country where there are, according to O’Rourke, over 390 million guns in America, these perpetrators flock to places where they will have the only lethal weapon. 

With an average police response time of 18 minutes, civilian gun owners often find themselves defending the lives of total strangers. ‘Good guys’ with a gun have stopped a deranged lunatic with their firearm in the past, saving countless lives. 

Americans should hope that if, God-forbid, they find themselves in the midst of a shooter, that there is a fellow citizen that stands ready to defend the lives of the innocent.

Hell no, Mr. O’Rourke. You will not be taking the guns of law-abiding citizens that have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If harm were to ever come to O’Rourke, his armed guards would jump to action, neutralizing the threat if necessary. 

He should expect the same from a single mother protecting her children from a home intruder, or a bystander saving several lives in a public shooting because he happens to be concealed carrying. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Leave a Reply