The Liberal media is at it again. These so-called “unbiased” reporters are citing an UNPUBLISHED study conducted by Harvard and Northeastern. The study found that three percent of the population owns half of the guns in the United States.
In their translation: if you own more than one gun you’re deemed a “stockpiler” or a “crazy person.” If you enjoy going to the range or you want to protect your family, then watch out. They’re going to come after you and saw you have a mental health condition.
First of all, why are they citing an unpublished study? If these supposed-reporters are going to try and push the gun control agenda and narrative, they should at least wait until the study is published so the average American can see the results themselves.
What Liberal newspapers like The Atlantic and The Guardian don’t understand is the thought process behind gun ownership. They equate owning a firearm to the killing of a person. If you own a gun then you must be someone who wants to kill people. You must want to carry out a massacre like the Orlando shooting.
Why is owning a firearm considered a bad thing?
What happened to wanting to protect yourself and your family?
“The desire to own a gun for protection – there’s a disconnect between that and the decreasing rates of lethal violence in this country. It isn’t a response to actuarial reality,” Matthew Miller, a Northeastern University and Harvard School of Public Health professor and one of the authors of the study, told The Guardian.
What Liberals, like Professor Miller, fail to understand is that gun ownership is the reason that lethal violence in the country is decreasing. More and more of the average Americans are taking their safety and the safety of their family into their own hands. When the average 9-1-1 response time is 10 minutes, there’s no time to wait. Owning and possessing a firearm is no longer an option but a necessity.
I’m tired of hearing the same old thing spewed at me. I must not care about other people’s lives if I own a firearm. In fact, I care about other people’s lives so much so that I carry a gun.
There’s also one other aspect that these anti-gunners haven’t addressed – or probably even thought about. Different guns are used for different purposes. I, myself, own a couple different handguns, all for various reasons. I have a .38 special that I have for home protection, a .9mm for CCW purposes and a .22LR for the range. Sure, I could use one gun for all of these aspects but why would I when every gun has a designated reason and a designated purpose?
“Why do you need more than one pair of shoes?” Philip van Cleave, the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League asked The Guardian. “The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
van Cleave said it best. You don’t use the same pair of shoes to hike in as you do attend a black tie event. The same logic applies to guns. Not every gun is created equal, therefore their anticipated use isn’t equal.
Why does this matter?
If we don’t work to change how anti-gunners see and view gun ownership then the Second Amendment is in real trouble. We need to vote for representatives who will ensure our Second Amendment rights.