The Real Reasons Liberals Hate Guns
What occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on that fateful December 14th morning was and remains heartbreaking. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the twenty innocent children killed, along with the loved ones of the other individuals slain must remain overwhelming.
This tragedy, purpetrated by a crazed, lone 20-year old gunman, has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level. There is, without a doubt, some type of federal gun legislation on the horizon in early 2013, perhaps as early as Wednesday, January 16th. Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surpise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people.
You see, we've seen how strict gun laws affect crime. Take Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and is a part of Illinois, which remains, at least for now, the only state in the Union that does not have a conceal and carry law.
During the first half of 2012, there were about 250 murders in Chicago. That represents a 38% increase over the same period of time in 2011. To make matters worse, the nation overall was experiencing a decline in murders over the same period. Therefore, Chicago was bucking the trend of the nation. Simply put, more gun control in Chicago has produced more deaths resulting in Chicago becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America.
Stricter gun control leading to greater homicides, and specifically homicides by firearm, is not a phenonenon relegated to the U.S. In fact, a Harvard University study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” found that the nine European nations with the lowest levels of gun ownership per capita had an aggregated murder rate three times that of the nine nations with the highest levels of gun ownership.
The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they've done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don't deter crime by firearm. In fact, it's likely that none of the proposals that President Obama will lay out on Wednesday would have stopped the horrific tragedy in Connecticut.
So, given that the numbers are against liberals regarding more gun control and less violence, why do liberals hate guns? Why are they so adament over the need to reduce the total number of guns owned by Americans if it doesn't make the streets safer?
What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn't actually about guns. It's about supressing power. To be more specific, it's about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.
Gun ownership puts power into the hands of the people and therefore they are less dependent on the government. Owning a gun at the time of need gives the law-abiding gun owner the ability to make the decision as to whether the use of force is lawful, right, and justified. The American Left doesn't believe ordinary citizens have the ability to make such decisions, hence their love affair with gun control.
Liberals prefer major life decisions to be made by the government. Consider issues such as government-run healthcare, the redistribution of wealth via the progressive tax system, and the lack of school choice as just a few examples that run parallel to their “government knows best” mentality present in those calling for more gun control and less overall guns. Again, it's not about the guns, it's about whether the people or the government should have the power.
Owning a gun makes a citizen more independent from his government. Visit the more rural areas of this great nation, which with no coincidence less liberals live, and you will find high levels of gun ownership and rightfully so.
These folks may be several miles from a police station. They cannot rely on law enforcement to stop a would-be assailant in their homes when law enforcement officials may be ten, twenty, or more miles away. There just isn't enough time.
That brings us back to the tragedy of Newtown. You see, the government failed to protect the lives of those twenty kids and the adults. Government, in the form of the police and the school district, did their best. The rules were followed in not allowing the killer easy access to the building and the area police arrived in only a few minutes. But, the police weren't quick enough as is often the case in a homicide situation. By the time officers arrived to school grounds, the killer had shot dozens of times.
Government simply failed, though not because of a lack of effort. It was impossible for government in the form of the police, with the time limitations persent in this tragedy, to save those killed in the school building. Government could not have save those people. There wasn't enough time.
In fact, the only thing that could have stopped the killer that fateful day was a mortal wound to the killer shot via a gun in the hand of someone in that school building. This is an undeniable fact. The killer, who obviously wasn't interested in the law at the time of the killing, could have stolen the guns to do the horrible dead, or obtained the guns in some other illegal way. Banning some so-called assault weapons wouldn't have stopped this tragedy. Only a bullet to the killer would have, but nobody in that building could have lawfully carried a loaded weapon.
In the end, of course, it was a gun that ended the killer's life. While the murderer used his own gun to kill himself, it was the threat of retaliation from the guns of law enforcement that caused him to take his own life. His life could have ended much earlier and perhaps two dozen or more lives saved if someone armed in the school would have had the capability to shoot him. However, they were absent the power since the school was a gun-free zone.
A lesson from the Newtown tragedy is that government is limited in its ability to protect the citizens of this nation. It always has been, hence the Founders placing the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. In these cases, the people need to have the powere to protect themselves, a power that was sorely absent in Newtown.
Liberals are simply on the wrong side of this issue. They are putting their passion for government power and intrusion ahead of the safety of the American citizens, whether they be in their homes, schools, or anywhere else in which they are threatened with their life.
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at [email protected]