The false controversy of the right to bear arms versus the prohibition of freedom is a globally common and equally childish phenomenon wherever it may arise.
There was a time when the discussion about the effects of freedom of access to firearms could – and perhaps should – be taken seriously, but that time is long gone.
Doubts about the detrimental effects of disarmament on freedom and safety have long been clarified, tested, and proven. There is a consistent negative correlation between the availability of weapons and/or the number of citizens carrying weapons and violence, meaning, no matter the historical period or social and economic level, when society is more armed, crime decreases, and vice versa.
In the 20th century, gun restriction measures paved the way for at least 10 distinct genocides.
Disarmament is a condition imposed on enemies to ensure their submission. A state that attempts to restrict access to firearms is both an enemy and a wannabe tyrant.
No, children are not dying because of firearms. In fact, only about 1% of unintentional deaths in the U.S. are related to firearms. And school shootings? Guess what? They are much rarer in places where citizens are armed.
Even suicides, when intending to commit heinous crimes before taking their lives, choose locations with a higher “success rate,” namely, gun-free zones.
Brazil was the most violent country in the world in absolute numbers when slightly more liberal gun legislation was passed. Homicide rates hit the lowest records in decades. When a former convict assumed the presidency under dubious circumstances and reinstated restrictive measures, violence rates rose again. Could it be more emblematic than that?
According to gunfacts.info, every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.7% of people using firearms defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.
Some may argue that “not everyone” should have guns. It’s true; I agree. Criminals should never have access to guns. The issue is that a law prohibiting criminals from having guns does not prevent them from having them. Still, it punishes law-abiding citizens, burdening their freedom with bureaucracy, inefficiency, delays, and costs.
You might also think that people with severe psychological problems should not have guns. And I agree with you! However, no law in the world has the power to prevent a person with psychological problems from buying a gun. Yet, in the real world, this restriction solely penalizes law-abiding citizens.
Even in a prison, an environment that theoretically would be entirely sterile, inmates always find a way to manufacture or obtain weapons. Imagine the rest of the world!
The freedom of access to firearms is, above all, a natural right. It is the realization of the right to life, the right to property, and the right to move freely.
Politicians and oddly-fringed, overweight ladies will always seek arguments far from reality to try to diminish individual freedoms. This won’t change. What needs to change is the attitude of good men and women worldwide regarding this. Never negotiate your freedoms. They are much more important than the life – and fragile mentality – of these individuals.