Gun Control... What Happens When Guns Are Removed From Society

Crime control or defense control, that is the question. Great Britain has, for all practical purposes, outlawed the private possession of firearms. Since the initiation of the prohibition, crime rates have soared and there are individuals in prison as a result of defending their homes with deadly force. Now British politicians have taken a next step which American gun-control groups have uniformly promised to be an absurdity – knife control. The government recently granted a five week knife amnesty period. During that time, even paring knives were turned in for disposal.

Such foreign antics should activate alarms for Americans as we watch our own anti-gun (ultimately anti-self-defense) politicians, activists and media expose their foreign-style philosophies and goals. As they ply their wares to the public and demonstrate a profound mistrust of ordinary law-abiding citizens, they also propagate firearm myths.

Guns in homes do not cause increased danger. The vast majority of both harmful and beneficial firearm incidents occur outside of homes and only eight percent of them by significantly related persons. There are six times more defensive gun uses (DGU’s) in the U.S. than there are aggressive uses. Of these DGU’s, the risk of death to the defender (where there is no criminal background) is three quarters of one-thousandth of one percent. Twelve out of thirteen suicides studies found that gun availability does not affect numbers of suicides. At school, firearm deaths are around thirty per year but two thousand youth are killed by their own parents and care-givers each year. In 1997, in Britain, there was a forty-four percent burglary rate compared to thirteen percent in America. Twenty-five times more youth are killed in automobile accidents then by firearms as well as six times more by drowning, four times more by fires and thirty-five times more by other causes.

Competing statistics do not take into account drug and alcohol involvement, criminal histories, gang involvement, sacio-economic status, percent of suicides, or whether the gun used was owned or kept by the home owner. A more effective way to control deaths and injuries would be to outlaw fire, swimming, cars, caregivers, and parents.

Abuse of the Constitution through Clintonian parsing of words and free-handed revision of history is a worse threat to Americans than guns. In spite of authoritative testimony from the likes of Madison, Adams, Jefferson and Henry or instruction from experts such as Tucker, Rawle, Story and Coxe, revisionists try to make Second Amendment words “keep” mean “store in a government armory” instead of “own” and “bear” to mean “use in the military” instead of “carry”. In order to accomplish their goals they are willing to turn the English language on its head thereby using the text against itself.

Civil liberty is at stake also. The fourth Amendment forbids search and seizure without probable cause. But the only way to enforce ownership prohibition is house-to-house searches or seizures conducted in completely unrelated law enforcement activities. Already, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is able to ignore probable cause or lack of criminal intent when enforcing The Gun Control Act of 1968. If the text of the Second Amendment can be so maligned, which other liberties will follow?
**This article is reprinted with permission from an original article from http://realitycheck101.net