Stricter Gun Laws will not stop violence

Many liberal individuals have a mindset that more guns equal more gun violence, but this is not the case. Gun abusers are not specific to gun buyers or recreational users and hunters. Even with stricter gun laws in place, a criminal set on using and abusing a gun will not abide by the laws in place and disregard any regulation in his way.

The notion that stricter gun laws will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands is absurd and it is unreal to ever think it will work. With the presence of the black market, any individual can buy any gun just by asking around in the right places. So what’s to say taking away the gun will stop an individual from committing the crime? Guns can easily be substituted for a wide range of weapons like knives, clubs/bats, and other random objects to produce similar, if not equal, bodily harm and/or intimidation.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem, and no amount of gun control laws will change how people think and make decisions. Looking at facts alone is evidence enough to see liberals’ obscure view on gun control and preventing gun violence.

The majority of gun related crimes are not at the hands of concealed handgun license holders as reported by the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2011. For aggravated robbery, 2,210 total convictions were reported statewide. Of those convictions, CHL holders perpetrated two.

Similarly, assault causing bodily injury had 8,304 total convictions where only 13 came by CHL holders. Robbery was 1,779 total with zero by CHL holders, manslaughter at 112 total and only three by CHL holders, and murder was 461 total with three by CHL holders. Just to sum it up, 63,679 total offensives were reported in Texas in 2011. Only 120 of those came by CHL holders — that’s only 0.1884 percent of all convictions. It’s easy to see that properly licensed gun owners are not the problem here.

The left-winged fear of the unknown is the culprit behind these attacks on gun laws and gun owners, ignoring the source of the problem that is the possessor of the gun/weapon. In the proper hands, a gun can be a lifesaving tool e.g., armed police. But, it becomes a deadly weapon to be feared when in the hands of criminals and individuals bent on harming others. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” pop icon Madonna said in an interview with the Washington Times June 24. This is a popular phrase commonly used that holds deep meaning, nonetheless.

In the right hands, or wrong for that matter, any object can be used as a weapon to cause death or bodily harm. So what makes guns specific for violence? Sure guns have been used throughout history in wars and other conflicts, but the purpose of a gun is not to kill; at least its intended purpose is not to kill. What many people may not see is that a gun is a tool designed to accelerate a projectile, from zero velocity to an arbitrarily higher velocity depending on distance to be covered, in a set direction. Guns are used for a variety of reasons from recreational use in shooting contests to survival usage in hunting.

Even when it comes to self-defense, guns are not always intended to kill. When used in self-defense, a gun’s purpose is to stop the bad guy. Only when the bad guy is set on harming a person, or even killing that person, is it understandable that killing him is the only way to guarantee the victim will survive. But, moreover, sheer intimidation is usually the case when used in self-defense.

Those who are not familiar with guns or have basic knowledge of current gun laws will often have a fear of guns because of the propaganda made by anti-gun activists or even by violence seen on media. But gun ownership is an essential part of self-defense and is a right guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Owning a gun, or even having a CHL, can be compared to owning a car and having a license to drive it. When used properly and safely, cars can be a safe and effective means of transportation. But when used incorrectly or carelessly, cars are a dangerous threat to everyone else on the road and to the person driving. The state trusts that each person driving a car has been properly licensed to safely operate a one-ton mass of steel on wheels with respect to the traffic laws in place, but this isn’t always the case.

According to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles in 2010, 3,023 deaths were reported as a result of car accidents. However, as released in the Crime Statistics for 2010 on the FBI website, only 805 deaths were reported in Texas for that year. That’s almost four times as many deaths due to car accidents than compared to gun violence. So why do liberals fight for stricter gun laws so much when fatal car accidents are more of a problem?


Similarly to substituting pepper-spray or tasers for guns, why not switch out all cars for bikes or scooters? If the former two are efficient means of self-defense, then the latter two must also be an efficient means of transportation. It seems that more people are willing to take on the responsibility of driving a car and risk a fatal accident so they can get from point-A to point-B faster. Likewise, gun owners also take on the risks and accept responsibility when purchasing a gun and/or obtaining their CHL.

Making guns harder to obtain will only leave the good guys unarmed and vulnerable. Mahatma Gandhi once said “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Although these words are almost a century old, they can still be applied to the problem facing the U.S. today. Leaving the people defenseless is not the solution for gun violence in America. Even if the intent is to lower gun violence and make places safer, I feel that this act will do more harm than good.


Looking at U.S. policy for drugs can give some insight to the future of guns in an anti-gun society. Making something illegal automatically creates a black market for that object. Although marijuana and other drugs are illegal in the U.S., they are still found everywhere imaginable. Like drugs, guns are found and will become more controlled by the black-market. Basic economics of supply and demand do not comply with the laws of the land or have any respect for the justice system.


Making guns harder to get or even illegal will put them into the hands of criminals and organized crime organizations that can, and will, supply them for the demanding public. Much like the dilemma of drugs in America, I hope liberals can see the full extent of where they are going and what to expect if they get what they want.

Zimmerman trial proves ongoing racial conflict in US

Headline news for the past few weeks have focused on covering George Zimmerman’s trial for the deadly shooting of Trayvon Martin. It’s astounding how much airtime was given to his trial. It’s been decades since a trial like this has had such national attention, so it’s apparent to see why this trial has received so much media attention.

Involving the killing of an African-American, the calendar rewinds about 50 years and we find the trial seeming to take place amid the peak of the civil rights movement in a racially torn apart America. And with the entire nation watching, it is assumed this was an attack led by racial discrimination.

However, this is not an attack on the black community, rather an attack from the black community. Initial investigation by first responders and on-the-scene police came to the conclusion that Zimmerman acted out of self-defense and therefore no charges were pressed.

But in response, angry protesters, who did not seek justice and instead sought revenge, piled claims of racially discriminative motives and coerced the prosecution of Zimmerman. This case should not have been coerced upon Zimmerman to satisfy the demands of those who could not see the situation for what it actually was.

Protesters who asked for Zimmerman’s prosecution claim he was taking the law into his own hands and acting as some sort of “vigilante Batman” for his neighborhood. But what they also fail to see is in doing this, they too are taking the law into their own hands and acting as vigilantes. And all this on the basis that Martin was singled out for attack solely because he was black. Regardless of his ethnic makeup, Martin was approached for suspicious activity in a neighborhood already undergoing recent break-ins and robberies.

When I was Martin’s age, I too could be found wandering around in the late hours of the night doing anything to get out of the house — sometimes for no reason at all, but also for the intent of getting into a little trouble.

And, I too was often stopped by police officers to make sure I was old enough to be out past curfew and to make sure I wasn’t up to any trouble. I don’t blame Zimmerman at all for thinking Martin looked suspicious.  

The fact Martin was an African-American immediately threw the case into the realm of racial conflict, and protesters seeking prosecution did their best to paint this as a hate crime against the black community.

At this point in American history, it is hard to believe racial conflict is still a prominent issue facing modern society. But this isn’t 1960 anymore, and we have progressed so much since the start of the civil rights movement.

This case shouldn’t be as big of an issue as the media has made it out to be and this is the source of my disappointment in media today. Major news groups such as Fox, CNN and MSNBC have created this case, given its vast amounts of airtime and turned it into a major racial issue.

Instead of bringing an issue to light and providing information for awareness, protesters and major news outlets have instead fueled the fire to make Zimmerman look like some kind of racist and Martin to be an innocent victim of discrimination.

If the tables had turned and Martin had killed Zimmerman, it’d be hard to determine if the same protesters would be pursuing persecution or seeking justice for Martin — at least not to this magnitude. Zimmerman would just be another number in a statistic of crime and violence in America.

“If you trusted the justice system to find a man guilty, you must trust it when it finds a man not guilty, or its just partiality you seek,” Bryan Peterson said July 14 via Twitter. These wise words from the Miami Marlins outfielder shows exactly how the trial should be viewed with respect to the verdict found by the jury.

However, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and protesters who called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman soon after the jury acquitted him of charges still refuse to halt their attacks on Zimmerman even after President Barack Obama called for peace in respect to the Martin family.

The law is the law and Zimmerman acted out of self-defense. Instead of mocking the final verdict of the jury, people should respect the court’s decision and be thankful that an innocent man was not wrongfully imprisoned.

However, I do feel sympathy for the Martin family and their loss, and also for Zimmerman and his family for the hardship endured throughout the trial and in the future as he must try to resume his life as a labeled murderer by protesters and the prosecution.