One gets sick of hearing conservatives argue with liberals over gun control, with the liberals coming out of the woodwork to insist that all guns be confiscated when a shooting incident is publicized in the press, with videos of the crime running for days after. The likes of such liberals as Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams and Bob Beckel always ignore the facts of the debate and argue emotionally about the deaths, the accidental shootings, the pain and suffering endured by the families and friends of the victims, and insist that legislation be fast-tracked to outlaw all guns.
Conservatives wander too far afield in defending the Constitution on the matter of gun ownership, and liberals will lead them off into irrelevant territory where nothing is accomplished and tempers are allowed to flare, leaving both sides seething and emotional. The conversations with liberals should be carefully contained and the libs should not be allowed to let the conversation drift into emotional, irrelevant, territory, and they should be constantly verbally prodded to stay on-subject and not drift afield in an effort to show us how compassionate they are. I would like conservatives to keep the following four talking points in mind the next time they get into an argument with a liberal. The purpose of having these conversations between left and right is to devise ways to stop crime and terrorism as soon as they rear their ugly heads, and only quick and decisive action will do that, not emotive verbiage. The last of these four has become a cliché, but is still absolutely true and must be brought up in any such argument:
- In 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring gun ownership by all residents of the town. Even though the law is not actively enforced and only about 50 percent of the population actually owns a gun, the crime rate dropped by eighty-nine percent following passage of the law, and has remained below the national average since that time.
- The cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates in the nation. So restrictive gun laws are not the answer.
- Black lives matter. Stop black-on-black killings in the cities having the most restrictive gun possession laws, and the national killing spree will drop significantly. But this approach would require blacks to insist that the liberal Democrat mayors of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and New York City, among others, do something about young black men killing each other, and that’s not likely to happen.
- When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. A cliché, but true nonetheless.
Having guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens inhibits the crazies from using weapons of their own, and if criminals or terrorists do launch attacks, the legal weapons will stop them quickly, whereas having no weapons is no deterrent at all. The Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris proved this point, with unarmed policemen being easily and quickly killed by terrorists. We know that armed policemen are not only a deterrent to crime, but they can forcefully prevent an attack from spreading to the wider population once an attack is launched.