Losing a loved one to gun violence gives no one a monopoly on virtue

The media have been presenting surviving relatives of victims of gun violence as proponents of new gun legislation, as though their calls for gun control made sense, although they have been failing to address the facts.

One pertinent fact is that all gun violence is committed not by responsible gun-owners, who make up slightly under 100% of the total set of gun owners, but by the few gun-owners who are prone to criminal behavior.  Guns do not kill people.  If they did, given the many millions of guns in America, no one should be left alive.

Another pertinent fact is that those who disobey the law would obey new gun legislation no more than they would obey or have obeyed existing gun laws, which they violated upon shooting innocent victims.

In addition, gun violence statistics are distorted to conflate gun-related homicides with gun-related suicides, as gun-related suicides constitute two thirds of all gun-related homicides in America.  Most gun deaths have to do with those who kill themselves.

Moreover, the media and other proponents of increased gun control ignore the simple reality that AR-15s, those much vilified "assault weapons," which they insist no one needs, are used in fewer murders in America than blunt objects.  Murderers kill with whatever is handy, more often with hammers or hands than with rifles.

Another important fact that is ignored by gun control proponents is that most gun-related violence takes place in inner cities.  Gun violence is not absent altogether from suburbia, but it is most often committed in major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City.

Some gun control proponents may be well motivated.  But losing a loved one to gun violence does not give anyone a license to obligate others to bend to his less than rational arguments in favor of infringing the right to bear arms.  Nor does it give anyone a monopoly on virtue, reason, or moral positioning.

The Second Amendment acknowledges an unalienable right.  Those who ratified it published their views with regard to the reasons for doing so, which included maintaining the power of the people to present a viable opposition to tyrannical tendencies in government.  Infringing that right with regard to those who have never used a gun irresponsibly or in a criminal manner would be tantamount to banning cars because some drive drunk.

While some gun control proponents may be sincere in their opposition to the undefined "assault weapon," others oppose the Second Amendment in connection with an agenda to make Americans less free.  It was precisely in anticipation of such tyrants that spurred those who drafted the Second Amendment to ratify it.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com