In all the arguments concerning gun control, one thing usually doesn’t come up: anything can be used as a weapon and most criminals will commit crimes even if they don’t have access to advanced weaponry. In a recent story, a man robbed a Best Western hotel with hot coffee. Police were unable to find the assailant, who made off with about four hundred and fifty dollars and a cell phone. No wonder he got away… the police probably got held up at Starbucks interrogating the barista turned arms dealer. If you can rob a hotel with coffee, what couldn’t you use?
Many domesticated Americans will say, “Yes, but you wouldn’t have the same level of violence if there weren’t guns. Someone can’t do nearly as much damage with coffee as they can with an AK-47.” Assuming you could actually ensure that criminals couldn’t get guns, I guess you’re marginally right, Mr. Hypothetical-Gun-Control-Advocate. They wouldn’t do as much damage… by themselves and in one go anyway. But gun controls cannot make the average citizen safe from the average criminal, even if the average criminal doesn’t have a gun. Because when average citizens don’t have guns, average criminals become more daring and more numerous. If you can make an easy five hundred using nothing more than a steaming cup of joe, why not, right? Now, if you are concerned that you might get a quail shot facial, you might think twice. Well, you wouldn’t, Mr. Hypothetical-Et-Cetera. You’re a decent human being, and you wouldn’t even think of robbing a Best Western. It’s so much easier to rob your rich neighbor staring down the muzzle of a Form 1040. But I digress.
Socialists love to make the argument that a gunless society would be a less criminal one. But I don’t think this is true given our current social environment (as the Coffee Man episode illustrates). A society free of non-criminal civilian guns would absolutely necessitate a larger and more intrusive police force than we currently have to ensure public safety. And I would be extremely surprised if big-government socialists didn’t know this. In fact, I think they’re banking on it. See, guns aren’t just to protect citizens from civilian criminals; they are even more crucial for protecting citizens from tyrants.
We need to stop saying, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” It’s catchy and all and basically true, but it leaves one of the most crucial points out of the discussion. Socialists are happy to argue about whether or not gun control works to reduce civilian crime. What they don’t want to talk about is the real problem with gun control: If you outlaw guns, only the civil government will have them. Our founding fathers understood that. Alexander Hamilton said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” What are “external controls on government”? Your guns. Period. The internal controls have already broken down. And unless you’re planning on using hot coffee to ward off tyrants, I recommend you start fighting harder for your Second Amendment rights.