Women are one of the fastest growing groups of gun owners in the nation, and the only part of that which doesn’t make sense to me is why they didn’t have guns all along.
After all, women have legitimate concerns regarding violent criminals, including being the victim of crimes that make being murdered potentially not sound so bad.
It’s that’s a thing, it makes sense to be armed so you can defend yourself.
But a lot of women are still anti-gun. That’s generally a favorite demographic of gun control advocates.
Yet the Independent Women’s Forum isn’t among those ladies. They seem to favor guns.
And there’s a great example of where they stand in their latest Two Truths and a Lie installment by Laura Carno.
We can all agree that we want to see fewer mass killings and less gun violence. The question is whether stricter gun-control laws will improve the situation or make it worse. Because of the politicized nature of gun policy, it’s essential to get past the rhetoric and sift through the facts to answer that question. How much do you know about gun control? Can you identify which of the following is the lie?
A. New gun control legislation will reduce crime.
B. More guns in more public places leads to less gun violence.
C. There are far more defensive gun uses than murders in a given year.
Let’s take these statements one at a time:
A. FALSE. In short, gun control legislation does not focus on the root causes of human behavior, including violence, crime, and untreated mental illness. At the heart of gun control initiatives is the hope that criminals will obey the law, but, in fact, they rarely do.
Congress, as well as state legislatures, would have us think that just one more gun-control law will magically reduce crime. But they have been saying that for decades, with no evidence of improvement. Then they offer the same legislation again.
Instead of reducing crime, new gun control legislation would:
- Not change criminal behavior. It only creates a false sense of security.
- Make law-abiding citizens less safe, especially victims of domestic violence.
- Turn law-abiding citizens into instant felons for ordinary, safe behavior.
- Be cost prohibitive for the poorest families to protect themselves.
Carno is, of course, absolutely correct. These are just some of what happens when one restricts guns.
Now, we already know that the other two points are true, and the average Bearing Arms reader already understands this, but that last point, that there are more defensive gun uses each year than murders, is a particularly important point.
It’s one that is continually ignored by the anti-gun crowd.
Instead, they push the idea that restricting guns is somehow going to make the problems go away, which Carno does a great job of summarizing why that won’t actually happen.
Couple in a complicit media that advances the gun control side of the debate and never seem to pushback on anti-gun talking points while constantly attack pro-gun arguments and you’ve got an uphill battle.
Restricting guns doesn’t make us safer. It does the exact opposite because the bad guys aren’t getting guns lawfully in the first place. So long as there are criminals who want to buy guns, someone will be around to provide those guns. That’s just simple economics. You’re not going to change that with laws that only impact the lawful gun buyers.
But then again, there’s a reason a lot of people believe that gun control is never about criminals but about disarming us. Crime is just a pretext for taking our guns.
I can’t say they’re wrong, either.