In all the recent discussions about guns in America one issue has been largely ignored, good intentions don’t save lives.
Dane Stier of The Northwestern Chronicle writes.
The Statistical and Moral Case for Gun Rights
Of the more than 4,500 words in the United States Constitution, a mere 27 words comprise the most controversial section:
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.
This, of course, is the second amendment, whose many interpretations have been argued incessantly in every facet of the media over the past few months. While I believe this entire country can agree we need to find ways to prevent tragedies such as those at Sandy Hook, what we disagree about is how to achieve that goal, whether it be through gun control or gun rights.
Though I respect the good intentions of many advocates of gun bans, I recognize that their ideas are nothing more than that: good intentions. A world without crime or murder would be an amazing achievement, but proponents of gun control refuse to acknowledge one critical flaw, which is that banning guns removes them from the hands of the innocent, not criminals, and history verifies this.
Even before the Sandy Hook tragedy, Connecticut had some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. In fact, of the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 states–including Illinois–also have very restrictive gun controls. Despite Illinois’ gun laws, Chicago has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the U.S. with 506 murders in 2012 (primarily gun-related).
If gun controls work, why would Chicago have such a high homicide rate? Simple: gun restrictions don’t work.
The Statistical and Moral Case for Gun Rights (The Northwestern Chronicle)