One of the hottest issues of the last decade is surely that of gun control. It's a dividing line in politics, similar to that of abortion, where there appears little middle ground. We're all familiar with the arguments, they're played out endlessly on TV and the internet, and these arguments - - fsecrom either side – never seem to persuade. The dominant media is firmly anti-gun, so supporters of the Second Amendment are bombarded with rationales and rhetoric, yet they don't convince. Why is this?
Could it be because at the heart of the gun debate is not so much a question of what laws can make people safer, but rather that those who support gun ownership know all too well that without a means of defense, tyranny will eventually follow?
I want to talk about two things, firstly, why it is that gun control arguments are ultimately flawed. And second, how the debate on having armed citizens is actually far older than we might think,
Let's start with a basic question: Does having a gun make the individual safer? This is a pretty simple thing to figure out. How many people were killed by firearms compared with how many were saved? The Center for Disease Control (CDC) actually tracks the cause of death of Americans each year. These figures show that around 11,000 people die from firearms each year in the US…not including suicides; the CDC also shows that there are approximately two and a half million defensive gun uses each year. So around 0.44 %. Of course, there's no tell...