Misconceptions About Guns and Gun Owners
Gun ownership is not an unusual thing where I live. Many people here will gladly discuss what firearms they own, and most of the rest just figure it's none of anyone else's business and keep it to themselves. There are a fair number of Californians and other out-of-state immigrants who adhere to their hoplophobia, but most who moved here did so to escape the busybody control freaks who legislated away more liberty wherever they came from and embrace our relative freedom here.
That said, there are a few people here who have some deep misconceptions about guns and gun owners, and the internet is full of multitudes who either ignorantly or maliciously attack those of us who own inanimate objects they abhor. I thought it might be worthwhile to address a few common assertions on the matter.
![](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2014/09/17/18/32/gun-449783_960_720.jpg)
Image credit
You Want To Arm Everybody!
I have been told by those who favor strict gun control laws that advocating firearm freedom means I want everyone to have a gun. This is not an accurate representation of my views. I want anyone who is willing to take personal responsibility for his own security to be free to take whatever steps they feel are necessary to secure their life, liberty, and property against aggression, provided they do not themselves violate the reciprocal rights of others.
After all, who really has a greater interest in your well-being: you, or a bureaucrat you have probably never met and who suffers no liability should harm befall you? When an emergency occurs, who is in a better position to be a first responder, you, or some distant government employee you might not even be able to contact in the first place? That's for you to decide for yourself, not for me or anyone else to decide for you.
You Want More Murder!
I have also been told by these advocates for government confiscation and restriction that I want to see murder rates increase, or at least that higher violent crime rates are an inevitable consequence of liberty. There are a few obvious answers to such accusations.
First, it is patently obvious that criminals don't obey laws now, and more laws would not change that. The War on Drugs made drug use and violent black markets worse, not better, and people who can make or smuggle drugs will make or smuggle guns just as easily. Violent crime rates tend to be highest in areas with the most strict laws against gun ownership as it is. There have been raids on gun factories in Australia and Brazil, for example, and the former country is often presented as a poster child for gun control success.
Second, violent crime has been trending down for decades during the same timeframe when states began relaxing restrictions on carrying guns. While this is not by any means a cause-and-effect relationship, it directly contradicts the assumption that more firearm freedom causes violent crime to increase. It is obvious to anyone who seriously studies the matter that violent crime is the result of a complex interaction of many factors, but liberty doesn't fundamentally cause crime.
Third, while data is hard to gather on the matter, efforts have been made to gather data on civilian intervention to stop mass shootings, and the conclusion from the available data is stark: Mass shootings aren't stopped by civilians because the shootings are stopped before mass deaths occur. Further, it is impossible to say how many violent crimes have been prevented without a single shot being fired because an armed citizen stood in the path of the aggressor and presented the willingness and ability to meet aggression with defensive force.
You Want More Suicide!
Related to this is the common tactic of lumping gun suicides in with coercive uses of firearms to inflate the firearm death toll. However, the US has a very average suicide rate compared to other countries. Many economically-advanced nations with much more strict gun control laws have far higher suicide rates. Japan, for example, is a popularly cited nation with strict gun control laws and low violent crime rates, but their suicide rates are significantly higher than in the United States, which is between the "progressive" nations of France and Sweden.
You Have a Small Penis!
I wish I were joking here, but many who fear firearm ownership accuse those of us who own guns of compensating for a tiny dick. You'd think it might occur to them that they are projecting their own obsessions a bit, but no. That said, gun owners are compensating for several things when they carry guns.
- Reacting to violence of proactive aggressors
- Numerical disadvantages
- Possibly facing more athletic aggressors
- A lack of claws, fangs, and a thick hide when encountering aggressive wildlife in the woods
- Predatory wildlife threatening livestock
In case it isn't obvious, none of these problems are related to inadequate genitalia. It is certainly possible that there are some people who believe carrying a firearm makes them more manly somehow, but such people certainly do not represent the whole, or even a majority, or firearm owners. Such accusations are clearly evidence that the accuser is insecure, because attacking the person rather than the arguments presented is one of the last resorts of someone who has no rational arguments to make.
Conclusion
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have also faced similar misguided and misinformed accusations by people who fear technology and liberty. What popular misconceptions or baseless accusations have you faced for firearms, crypto, or anything else you do of which others often don't approve? Comment below!
It is common to find detractors of the right to bear arms, usually live in countries of Europe or something like that, where the carrying of weapons is strictly regulated or prohibited, which is why they only associate weapons to illegal activities or criminals, therefore, they have a misconception about the issue.
When you illegalize the carrying of arms, you only avoid that the people who comply with the laws bear arms, those who act outside the law will not suddenly decide to comply with that, it is ridiculous.
In addition, and as an extra, there can be no tyranny while citizens carry weapons, neither democratic, nor dictatorial.
That is why slaves are not allowed weapons unless they are indoctrinated as military "elites" like the Janissaries.
Couldn't agree more.
Which group is actually obsessed with guns?
Exactly. Statists gonna state!
I've dealt with family members and friends being weird or just flat out annoying with their opinions on the fact that I own and CCW firearms. Thankfully I haven't faced any harassment or insane arguments from someone over it.
Though, my collection is pitiful as hell right now since I only have one handgun and a stripped AR-15 lower, lol.
I lost all my guns in a voting accident ;)
I have been watching my revolver in my closet for months and months now. It has yet to kill anyone, with help or without.
;)
Neither has my shotgun.
I have heard all the arguments you mentioned against people who want the freedom to bear arms, and it gets tiresome. If you don't like guns, dont get one. Its that easy! I dont care if you get a gun or not!
Just don't try to take mine.
Well, clearly you don't have one of those Evil Black Rifles™ that mind control their owners into becoming evil.
Never mind the vast number that are never used for evil. They don't count.
Apparently not...
I really dodged a bullet there!
;)
I see what you did there...
Manny people gun use his protection and many people gun use the Crime
I've no problem with firearms, and enjoy shooting myself, however, you cannot ignore the fact that America has a big problem with guns. Its an extreme outlier amongst developed nations for deaths by firearms. For example, where I live in Poland, you are as likely to be killed by gun as by riding a bicycle. In UK, where i'm from originally, you are as likely to be be killed by gun as by agricultural machinery! In US, you are almost as likely to be killed by a gun as you are by a car crash.
Firearm related deaths are ridiculously common, which I believe is in a large part due to irresponsible regulation surrounding who can get hold of a gun. The checks for possessing such a powerful tool should be much better - pysch evaluations, references, and handling courses before a license is considered.
It seems to me partly due to a yeehaw cowboy culture, partly due to a slightly irrational fear of government reach, and partly due to fear of not being as well-armed as the next person.
I was living in the US during Sandy Hook, and I was absolutely sickened by such an occurance. As an isolated incidence, its a tragedy, but when it happens again and again, something is pretty fucked up at a more basic level.
I dont agree with banning firearms, but I do agree with restricting them, making it damn hard to get military grade hardware and handguns, and allowing the government to conduct frequent tests and checks on owners.
Military-grade firearms are heavily restricted. Do you have any idea how hard it is to legally acquire an actual select-fire assault rifle? The worst possible solution is to punish peaceful people with more arbitrary restrictions as a feel-good knee-jerk response. An AR-15 is just an ergonomic semi-automatic carbine made from modern materials.
As noted above, violent crime rates have plummeted. It's fallen by about half over the past 30 years. Meanwhile, violent crime is largely restricted to two areas: The black markets that arose with the War on Drugs, and areas where firearms are already heavily restricted or outright banned.
Im aware that it is difficult & expensive to get fully auto rifles, but then mods like bump-stocks make it relatively easy to get around this. Also, its possible to get fully auto rifles from pre-1986 (I think - maybe dependant on state?)
Im not a fan of handguns, because these are not meant for hobbyists or hunters, but rather designed as anti-personel and to be concealed. Does the average citizen really need one, and should they be so easy to get hold of? They are responsible for the majority of homicides and accidents.
Violent crime has fallen everywhere in developed nations, and not just US. However, only US has such a problem with firearm related deaths. Cause and effect of the ease of access to firearms is fairly evident here.
Is it possible to legally acquire fully-automatic rifles? Yes. But not at all easy. And an AR-15 is not a fully-automatic rifle, although many seem to believe it is.
Handguns are extremely useful. They are far easier to carry than a rifle, and that makes them superb for self-defense against wildlife or criminals. My rights to property and self-defense are not trumped by your opinions about whether I "need" them. Just because they are used in homicides, that doesn't mean that is their intended purpose or they need to be regulated more. And I can't find the stats easily, but if I recall correctly, ann firearm-related accidents have also been trending down as well.
If violent crime has fallen everywhere, including Australia (often cited as evidence that "gun control works!") and the US with relative increases in firearm freedom during the same time, it should be apparent that guns are not the key factor at all. There are essentially two Americas: The America with guns, and the America with rampant crime. The crime is associated with the violent black markets that arose out of the War on Drugs.
From Wikipedia:
If guns were the problem, these statistics would not be where they are. As I noted before, the US does not have an unusually high suicide rate, and is well below that of Japan (strict gun laws) and in between modern European nations like France and Sweden (I'm no expert, but they have less guns than the US, right?)
The kicker though is that bans mean you want government goons with guns enforcing your opinion, and that means you actually advocate gun violence against people who want to peacefully do things you don't like. That's not exactly civilized behavior, especially when your intent is to address a problem that is not related to your advocated power grab.
Im aware that AR-15 isnt fully auto, and for the record, I think it is an elegant piece of engineering that gets a bad press.
The point about handguns being easy to carry is in my opinion what makes them so dangerous - 90%+ owners will be highly responsible, but the small minority can do an awful lot of damage with them. Its difficult to tuck a shotgun or rifle into your pants and bring it to school, or a shopping centre, but alarmingly easy with a handgun. I dont agree with the argument that having a handgun makes you safer against wildlife and criminals, unless your the sort of guy (or gal) who rolls around town with a holster at all times and sleeps with it under your pillow! Most responsible gun owners will have it locked in a safe, where it is all but useless against the home invader coming in the small hours or the racoon springing a surprise on bin day.
As I mentioned earlier, I think you over-estimate the threat of a big bad govt coming to subjugate you - it sounds a bit tinfoil hat. Perhaps it stems historically from America's first rebellion against the Brits, when such things were actually happening, and this historical legacy has been passed on in your constitutional right to bear arms to prevent 'tyranny'.
Ultimately, we're not gonna agree on this issue, but I applaud your research and passion for this argument. In Europe we tend to forget how entrenched the idea of gun ownership is in USA, and I don't think it is ever gonna go away, nor are there easy answers.
Keep your safety on, and your barrel clean, that's probably the only thing we're gonna find common ground on!
You are simultaneously saying it's tinfoil hattery to be suspicious of government threatening my liberty while simultaneously advocating for government violence against me if I don't obey a new restriction you want them to impose. A bit odd, don't you think?
We have recent historical examples of government aggression against people. Police brutality runs rampant, the Waco siege was completely inexcusable, the Ruby Ridge standoff was pure governmental aggression, the army literally gunned down protesters at Kent State University, and the war on drugs is a blatant overreach used to excuse innumerable aggressions just for starters.
Remember, every government law is an opinion backed by threats of violence. Crime is not defined by the fluidity of legislative dictates. crime is the violation of universal and reciprocal rights. Trespasses against life, liberty, and property are crimes, and when these crimes are committed by governments under color of law every day around the world, it is entirely valid to say government is out to get you.
As for handguns, I live where bears, mountain lions, wolves, and moose are literally in my back yard. I have had a moose stare at me while her calf pawed through the pile of crass clippings I had just piled up, and had she decided I was a threat, it would have been very bad. It's hard to carry a 12 gauge or a rifle while working, and harder still to deploy it in a hurry, but a pistol on the hip is extremely handy.
As for urban carry, a handgun concealed out of sight makes you unobtrusive to any who may have ill intent, and gives you an option in the event of an emergency. As linked in the original article, the death toll when an armed citizen intervenes averages less than 3, while police intervention results in an average fice time shigher than that, so despite the unlikeliness of needing it as noted by the decreasing crime rate, it's absolutely an essential for those willing to take personal responsibility for the security of themselves and others.