Gun Control Doesn't Work

The final death stroke against us by the New World Order will come through the removal of guns from the people of America! We are very close to having that happen through a treaty carried out by the United Nations and/or through misguided anti-gun enthusiasts who think that prohibiting the ownership of guns will reduce crime.

I grew up in a household that had loaded guns all through the house. At the age of 5 or 6 I was taught how to shoot and we would go out target practicing on a pretty regular basis. My father must have owned about 20 guns. He would tell us don't ever point a gun at someone unless you want to kill them. My sister and I never played with guns, we were taught to have a healthy respect for them. When I grew up I always had a gun in my apartment. When I drove long distances I took it with me and yes it was loaded. I felt safe having it knowing that should anyone accost me that I would have some form of self defense.

The argument that our country has so much violence because we have so many guns does not make sense to me. The old saying that when you criminalize guns only the criminals will have guns makes a lot more sense. Think about it, a person who already has no problem, robbing, raping, stealing and murdering will not think twice about carrying a gun that is an illegal act. However, law abiding citizens are the ones that will be hurt with stricter gun laws. What can you do if someone breaks into your home to rape or kill you if you have no weapon for protection, especially as a woman.

There have been numerous studies that show that stricter gun laws do not deter crime and that even the opposite is true. In Washington D.C., for example, they had one of the most strict gun control laws in the country yet their crime rate went up.

Some argue that guns will fall into the hands of children. The fact is that a child is more likely to die from drowning in a swimming pool than from a gun. Yet, how many parents don't think twice when letting their children go swimming in the neighbors pool.



According to the Arizona Star:

Standard summer companions in our desert climate, swimming pools can be deadlier for children than guns. A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gun-play, writes Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

There have been two times in my life that a gun was brandished. The first time was when I was a teenager visiting my girlfriends older boyfriend. He pulled out a gun and told us to "sit down", then he pulled it up and laughed. My life flashed before my eyes and I never felt more helpless. The second time I was held up at gun point by a mugger in Sacramento, California. It was soon after that episode that I asked my father for a gun of my own. I've never had to use it but just knowing it was there always made me feel safer. I often wonder about these young girls that are jogging like Chelsea King in California and then their bodies are found several days later, I wonder if they carried a gun while jogging if they would still be alive. If I had a teen daughter who wanted to job I would make sure she had a concealed weapon and knew how to use it.

Rather than implement stricter gun laws I think we should advocate for gun education. Teaching citizens how to use guns, how to clean and store them properly and fostering a healthy respect for their power would go a long way towards deterring crime.

If MORE people had MORE guns there would be less crime!

A criminal would think twice about breaking into your house if he knew that you had a gun and knew how to use it. The Arizona shooter would, at the very least, be prepared to die if he knew that most of the people in the crowd were carrying a concealed weapon. At the very least maybe a few people would be alive today if someone had had a gun and were able to take the shooter down before he killed more people.

The argument that guns should be restricted in the face of tragedy is a red herring and one that I hope the American public will withstand!


**If you would like to earn money writing for hub-pages click here: http://hubpages.com/_earnmoneywriting

Do you own a gun?

  • Yes
  • No
  • I'll take the 5th!
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 37 comments

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 6 years ago from HubPages, FB

Brie, absolutely great hub.

In Switzerland every man is a soldier at home. They do not have an official army. All have guns. In Switzerland there is no crime or very low. When communists took our country Czechoslovakia it was first to take away all guns we had. Every healthy man is drafted and serves two years in army. I believe it should be on voluntary basis. Personally I became also soldier and now I would be the captain now. Every government which is doing wrong is afraid of guns in peoples hands.

People die on highways. Are we going criminalize cars? Very good point Brie.


BDazzler profile image

BDazzler 6 years ago from Gulf Coast, USA

I think you have an excellent point and well made point, with the right to own guns comes responsibility of knowing how to use them safely and properly. Owning a car, swimming pool,or a gun means you own something that can kill someone if misused or the safety rules are ignored.

Oddly, the constitution does not explicitly protect the right to own a car or a swimming pool.

Well written. Well explained. Excllent hub.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thank you Vladimir and BDazzler...the Switzerland example is very good, I wish I would have thought of it! :) To me the whole issue is just common sense, however the media has successfully made a lot of people deathly afraid of guns so they want us all to be afraid of them. Not that I think we shouldn't have a healthy respect for something that can take a human life, but I think that they have gone overboard.


foreignpress 6 years ago from Denver

A very pertinent post, Brie! I've always disliked guns. But criminal activity has increased and I'm in the process of researching a handgun for myself. This might be another hub you could write: "How to buy a gun," or "Guns made for women," etc. A .22 cal. is useless. But smaller hands and wrists want to avoid the kickback of a larger caliber. Also, concealed carry laws vary in each state. There are nonlethal alternatives to guns. I always carry bear spray. It's more toxic than pepper spray. The chemical is propelled up to 75 feet and leaves a vicious odor that remains for months. It also stains the skin and clothing. My oldest daughter is a park ranger, and she's in desolate areas by herself often. She doesn't carry a gun -- yet.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hi Foreignpress:

The problem with spray is that you have to make sure you don't have it pointed towards yourself and in the dark that can be a real problem.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

I read once,"I would rather have a gun and never use it than not have one and wish I did."

You're right,"Rather than implement stricter gun laws I think we should advocate for gun education."

Good hub.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Tom...good quote!


majicat profile image

majicat 6 years ago

"Those that live by the sword will die by the sword". This is a pretty touchy subject. self defense is a necessity in today's world, however, how many people need an uzi? fully automatic machine guns are understandably controlled and rightly so. Just because the sane segment of society wants to control the extremes does not necessarily mean that we want total ban. have you ever gone to a gun show? I live in idaho and let me tell you, *that* is a revealing experience. Scary people... I know people who have enough arms stashed away to outfit an army. filled with fear, they only continue to buy more and more.. Jesus said, "Love your enemies" how do you love your enemy with a 45? if the Armageddon is really coming as so many believe, how do you reconcile, "they that live by the sword will die by the sword"? "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"?..... I think not.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Jesus also said:

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I don't think having a weapon for self-defense qualifies as "living by the sword" those are two different life-styles.

Regarding the "love your enemies", I don't think that prohibits one from protecting their children or family from attack. I don't think that loving your enemy requires you to sacrifice your children. You may and that is a personal difference.

The problem today is that the police have much bigger swords and if you have a pocket knife and they have a machete, guess what, YOU LOSE! That is one reason why people buy machine guns. If you say the general public can't have them, but the police can, you have in essence disarmed the general public.

Personally, I am not afraid of the public that have weapons as much as I am of the government. More mass killings have been perpetuated from governments than from citizens.


majicat profile image

majicat 6 years ago

Right, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think that deadly force is sometimes necessary, and that love can and must be the determining factor. however, if fully auto weapons are available to everyone, then what about grenades? how about missiles? where do you draw the line, with a suitcase nuke? there has to be a line somewhere don't you think?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well, that's a good point. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world and there is no perfect answer. I'm not sure what that line is, I just have seen from history that I don't trust the government to have all the weapons...but it is getting very difficult and will continue to do so unfortunately.


BDazzler profile image

BDazzler 6 years ago from Gulf Coast, USA

majicat ... From what I understand everything required for OK City was obtained legally, or at least legally available. Regardless of laws, regs etc. The genie is out of the bottle. Anyone with enough high school chemistry or college physics can build some pretty nasty stuff out of otherwise "harmless" material.

I thing you made an excellent case for her original point, "we dont' need more regulation, we need more education.

As to your questions, I agree, the line must me drawn, ... in my opinion I don't think anyone should have personal ownership of anything larger than 0.25 Ktons, more than that is just excessive ;)


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 6 years ago from Malaga, Spain

The other day a child was killed when she shot herself, but it was the fault of W11 because she thought it was the game handset.

Teaching children to live through a game set is plain stupid!

I used to shoot in a gun club in the UK, I was weapon trained and enjoyed the relaxation of shooting.

When they took away the legal guns in the UK, that was it, no longer able to legally own guns.

Now only the Police and criminals use guns.

From a scriptural viewpoint, since coming to faith, weapons have been no part of my life.

If I found myself 'left behind', then a gun or two would be my first stop.... but then I don't expect to be left behind!

John


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

As a Christian I guess it is a personal decision whether to defend yourself or not, but I think things are different when you have children or other people counting on you.


LusciousLarry 6 years ago

Barack Obama can personally have my gun when he prys it from my cold dead hands.


thehands profile image

thehands 6 years ago

Yeah, I tend to agree. Gun control mostly punishes law-abiding citizens and probably does little to thwart real criminals.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

It's common sense.


ahorseback profile image

ahorseback 6 years ago

Hi Brie; such a great messege, our single biggest problem with crime today is we don't have "crime control"

The old "revolving doors" of justice ! We have a million too many laws that aren't even upheld in most cases,And the sad part is everyone knows this.......it is nuts!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Yes, it's crazy...every day I read in the papers and we are going down down down down. Thanks for writing "ahorseback".


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

It may be true that if more people had more guns there would be less crime it is definitely true, and provable, that the more people that have more guns, the more people will end up dead by gun.

Given the number of children accidentally killing themselves or others each year because adults were negligent with their guns leads me to believe your family might be in the minority as to their level of responsibility with gun ownership. I applaud them.

BTW, I don't own a gun myself, I had my fill of them when I was in the Army years ago but I certainly don't oppose others owning them. I just think that owners must pay a very high price if they are negligent with them.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

What about owners of swimming pools...more swimming pools kill children than guns!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Brie, I know what you say is true, but that isn't my point. Unlike a swimming pool, the only purpose for the existance of guns is to kill other human beings; that is why they were invented in the first place. To me, that puts them in a very special category of objects that deserve special consideration. The fact that you can use a gun for non-leathal purposes is mute to me. So, from my way of thinking, the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances that regulate who can get guns, the hurdles needed to actually acquire a gun, the proof that you still own the weapons you say you have, how they are to be stored, the penaties for negligence in their safekeeping and use, the training you need before acquisition, and where and how they can be used need to be in line with the leathal purpose of guns. That is all I am proposing.

I don't really care how many guns you own or, for that matter, what kind of weapons you own although I might draw the line at nuclear bombs, anthrax, or M-1 tanks. What I care about is that the regulations are strong and enforcable enough to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. In the research I have done, the link between states who have few restictions on the acquisition and ownership of guns, the number of guns in circulation in that state, and the rate of deaths per 100,000 people by gun are directly proportional and dramatic. The more strict a states regulations are, the fewer guns are in circulation and the lower the rate of death by gun. (I am not talking about homicides, just deaths for any reason.) There is one outlier of course and that is Washington D.C., technically not a state but don't tell them that. There death by gun is way up there and it is because of the easy access they have to guns in Virginia.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Mexico has a complete gun ban, why don't you move there since it MUST be a very safe place!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Thought the ultimate point of guns IS to kill. With that said, millions and millions of folks enjoy shooting guns of all varieties, it is a hobby/sport. Gun shooting competitions are growing. Hunting is enjoyed by millions. Gun collecting is also an excellent hobby and in some cases a great investment. But, the bottom line IS, it is our right. Despite the ugliness to many people, the fact that any person WANTS a gun of their choice to assure themslevse the proper protection of them and their families should NEVER, EVER be compromised.

My Esoteric, I agee that if certain individuals who have been declared mentally incompetent or those who have committed certain felonies should not have these "rights" to continue to purchase firearms. If firearms are being used improperly, then heavy fines should be levied. I would even be in favor of gun training for certain guns, that should be aquired before getting a liscence for one, much as we do driving.

I think the NRA does an excellent job at promoting gun safety and training.

Brie, I think you nailed it all with your hub very well.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Mexico obviously doesn't enforce it very well, in any case, I already agreed with both of you regarding the right to own and use guns. That isn't the issue. So, let me try to make my point by asking a question.

1. Why do you suppose those states who do not regulate their guns very much and have a higher percentage of gun ownership have double to triple the number of deaths by gun per 100,000 when compared to states that have stricter gun laws and lower percentage of gun ownership have double to triple the number of deaths by gun?

2. Why wouldn't you think it would be better for Louisiana, who has few gun regulations and whose rate of death by gun in 2007 was around 10 per 100,000 to adopt the stricter regulations of New York state which has only around 3 deaths per 100,000 in 2007? Both states allow gun ownership, both states allow target shooting, both states allow hunting, why wouldn't Louisiana and other states want to adopt public policies that save lives? Why do people fight so hard against such public policy when it doesn't impact the right to own a gun?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Because if you give a bureaucrat an inch he will take the whole country.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

That was the exact argument, well words to that effect anyway and generally a lot harsher, used by the anti-Federalist in their fight against the ratification of the US Constitution. They very nearly succeeded in torpedoing the creation of the United States as you know it today and would have if Federalists hadn't compromised with certain factions of the anti-Federalists and promised to amend the Constitution with the Bill of Rights once it had been ratified. That brought in just enough anti-Federalist support to gain ratification and prevent a bold experiment from dissolving into the anarchy of 13 independent states which is what a confederacy is. Since then the bureaucrats, of which I was one for 21 years while serving in defense of my country, have had 200 years to fulfill the sky-is-falling rhetoric of the anti-Federalists. In that time: The State governments have not become mere puppets of the Congress. The State Courts have not been made mute by the all powerful federal court system. The Federal government has not become a monarchy or corrupt aristocracy. The House has not lost touch with its constituency. The only prediction that has become partially true is that the federal judiciary has allowed the rich to oppress the poor. The bureaucracy has had 200 years and ample opportunity to take the whole country and it hasn't yet. I don't suspect it ever will.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Wow, I don't know what country you are talking about because it isn't the United States!

Every single thing you said HAS NOT happened has MOST CERTAINLY happened.


SirDent 5 years ago

I agree with you completely. Guns do not kill, evil and wicked people do. This is what must be addressed. To remove the wickedness of people.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks for writing SirDent (long time no hear) :)


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Brie, I do find that interesting. It would be of great interest to me if you could expand a bit and give me some examples where those predictions have come true, for I certainly can't think of any.

BTW, I have been meaning to comment on Ahorseback's comment. Although I suspect some of my thoughts on prosecuters are opposite of yours, he is absolutely right. I think how we fund and treat the totality of our justice system is ... well criminal. I will add in our firefighters and teachers/teaching materials and facilities(I think education is a matter of national security). I was suggesting to my wife last night that all three should have sufficient and DEPENDABLE funding. Politics is killing justice in America. It starts from the very highest levels with Democrats and Republicans playing politics with appointing federal judges, since whenever Bork was defeated and then as a matter of Party dogma in 1994, down to stripping the police of manpower and resources at the county and city levels while politicians continue to pay themselves, their relatives and friends while handing out sweatheart contracts.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Ok, one example is the Arizona Immigration Law..the Federal government stepped in to stop it right away. Another example are all the state laws that legalize marijuana and yet the feds ignore those as if they didn't exist. The Federal government is completely out of control, waging illegal wars, losing trillions of dollars without a word from anyone. The waste is enormous.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Arizona is on the table for debate because of the issue of who is allowed to control national borders and discrimination. I am not saying your wrong, just saying there are two sides on that one. The states have enacted laws for marijuana in direct opposition to existing federal law. Again, and I am not saying they don't have the right to do so on this issue, it is on the table for debate because they are usurping a federal authority that has been around for many decades, the right to regulate illegal drugs. It has been upheld by many State and Federal, including the Supreme Court, where this one is headed. A Court, by the way, that is stacked toward States Rights decisions, a situtation anti-Federalist said would never happen.

Having said all that, the points you raise are so important, that I am going to change the subject of my next hub in this area to talk about in more detail and more broadly this topical area. It will be called Principals and Pragmatism III.

I left your third example for last, although I don't think it bears on the question, it is such a extrodinarily huge frustration it makes me want to hit something. I was in the middle of that for 20 years in DoD watched many billions of those trillions get wasted, some of them personally. Some of the things I saw would curl your toes! I had one of those esoteric (pun intended) jobs called a Cost Analyst with both the Dept of the Air Force and, for awhile, OSD. I belonged to an independent office that reported outside the normal chain of command that developed independent estimates of what major acquisitions should cost. The program had to defend their program in light of our estimate and decisions were made from that. Obviously, we were only partially successful but if we weren't around, you might have had to add another zero to the end of your estimate of waste.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

The waste is so enormous one can only conclude that it is theft and since NO ONE has been held accountable one can also conclude that the entire government is complicit. BTW, the government is running the drugs (they don't like competition)!


TechTrendy 4 years ago

Outlaw guns and only criminals will possess them. I absolutely love this hub as it gets some needed point across. Sure not everyone will agree and those who don't believe in guns should be treated with respect just as much as those who do.


Marcus 3 years ago

To answer your question My Esoteric, it's not the tougher accession laws that is the issue, it is the fear that tougher legislation will open the door to even more restrictive legislation and ultimately, complete seizure of weapons. If the historical precedence holds, it is a very valid concern. The one thing that everyone seems to overlook though is that the guns aren't the issue, its the moral corruption and lack of societal constraint that is breeding the problem in the first place. But then again, how do you limit social media, movies, television, games and like without censoring and therefore abridging those 1st amendment rights? I think that we should accept that we are beyond the point of recovery and spiraling toward the collapse global civilization, and focus on our own children and hope the have the strength and morality to survive the collapse with dignity.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 3 years ago from Manhattan Author

Amen Marcus Amen!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.



    **If you would like to earn money writing for hub-pages click here: http://hubpages.com/_earnmoneywriting



    Click to Rate This Article
    working