So, You Think We Have A Gun Problem?

Updated: Jun 1



You hear it now every time something happens that involves a gun. What's that? The calls for people to "turn in their guns," or to stop people from owning, "weapons of war."


It's just bizarre to me that people think that my guns, stored safely in my gun safe, or a in a fingerprint ID quick box, are the problem when literally none of my guns have been used to kill anyone. But they will tell you that these are the problem, the whole problem, and nothing but a problem.


But what if there is more to it? Oh, wait, they stopped listening/reading at the last paragraph concluding that the article was obviously finished since it stated THEIR truth.

 
 

The fact remains that those bleating for "gun control" are using it as a tool of deflection to keep from talking about the real problems in our country. Namely, the rampant crime rates, the criminal culture that celebrates theft and assault, and the slow police response times due to departments being focused on traffic enforcement (read fund raising) as opposed to neighborhood patrols.


How slow are the police? Well, the top ten cities in America boast the following times:


  1. Chicago: 3.46 minutes

  2. Los Angeles: 5.7 minutes

  3. Seattle: 7 minutes

  4. Dallas: 8 minutes

  5. Miami: 8 minutes

  6. New York City: 9.1 minutes

  7. Atlanta: 9.5 minutes

  8. Houston: 10 minutes

  9. Detroit: 12 minutes

  10. Denver: 13 minutes


It is a well documented fact that most gun crimes / gun incidents are over in less than one minute, in fact, most do not even last 30 seconds. So when the average police time is almost four times the longest gun incident timeframe, you are talking about glorified crime reporters not crime preventers. Here is the video of an officer involved shooting in California. It's very graphic, so please do not watch if it will upset you. The entire video is over 2 minutes, but the gun action part is approximately 20 seconds. That's how long it took for the gun part of this to happen:



So what is a reasonable and logical person to conclude when looking at the above and then evaluating their responsibility to care for their family and property?


Mostly, that police "protection" is a myth. It used to be true, but it no longer is.


Heck, the average burglary in America lasts 8-10 minutes if no one is home. That means that if your burglar alarm does its job and goes off, only 7 of the top 10 police departments in our country will get there in time if the thieves take the longer part of the average. If the thieves are on the short side? 5 out of 10, and only 3 of them will really make it in time ON AVERAGE.


Now imagine that you live out in rural Texas, Idaho, Arizona, or somewhere where your only law enforcement is the country sheriff. Their response times are much, MUCH, longer, and they have to drive crazy distances just to investigate what happened. They certainly cannot protect you.


So what choice do you have but to protect yourself?


Oh wait, we are not supposed to protect ourselves and our properties, after all, our stuff is not worth someone's life. Except it is not our stuff we are protecting, it is our way of life and the civil society. That is something entirely different.


But what about the stolen guns used in crime? Surely that changes things, right?


Well, interestingly enough, the guns that they are trying to ban are not the ones being stolen and used criminally. Only 22% of all stolen guns are rifles, according to the FBI, and rifles is a broad category with everything from the M-1 Garand, to the AR-15, to a .306 hunting rifle.


So to say that they are trying to ban the only the guns used in mass shootings is a smoke screen at best, and downright dishonest more accurately. Those are the ones that they are targeting first, but the statistics say that if they want to truly reduce gun crime, they'll have to target an entirely different type of weapon, which means, you guessed it, more gun control.


In fact, according to the Department of Justice, gun theft has been going down numerically, not necessarily percentage wise, since 1994. 2010, the last year calculated, was the lowest rate of firearm theft tracked over that time. Yet during all of that time of less gun theft from private citizens, the gun crime rates have continued their upward trend.


To recap, less guns are being stolen from private citizens, but more guns are available and more gun crimes are being committed.


Does that make any sense if the gun control advocates are right?


But let us dispense with all of the above for a moment and dive right to the heart of the issue.


Why do I need to protect myself at all?


If people did not feel the need to protect themselves, they would not own firearms.


Most people do not enjoy shooting as a sport like I do. To them, their one gun gathers dust and never gets fired. Why do they have it? Because they feel an ever increasing need to protect themselves.


Want to lower the number of guns?


Lower the feeling that people need one.


That is what I find most incomprehensible about the argument from the gun control advocates. They appear to believe that if they just magically make all guns disappear from private owners, that they will solve gun crime. Except it does not work like that. Even England sees thousands of gun crimes each year and they have some of the toughest weapons laws on the planet.


I do not hear these same advocates for gun control out protesting about police response times, no instead they are protesting to defund and make police more ineffective.


I do not hear these same advocates for gun control out protesting about the rising rates of theft, or begging for early intervention or harsher sentencing for young offenders to stop repeated offenses. No, instead they want cash bail reform and to let them out faster so they can re-offend even quicker the next time.


I do not hear these same advocates for gun control out protesting against the idea of assault and battery. Instead I hear them cheering fist fights and talking about how sometimes people just need a "beat down."


Well, sorry, I do not need a "beat down," and if someone tries to give one to me, they will meet the business end of my weapon, whichever I happen to have on me to include mace, batons, pepper spray, a pocket tazer, and yes, my firearms.


If you truly want to control guns, then control the society that makes people feel like they are necessary.


Until I hear gun control advocates talking about that, and trying to figure out how to make society safer, rather than equitable, I will keep listening with nothing more than a passive ear.


I should not have to defend myself, but as long as I do, I will keep my guns.


You can keep your "control."

 

https://www.saferwatchapp.com/police-response-time/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl_1ZZlQT5Y

https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/burglary-statistics/

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/

25 views0 comments