There is no shortage of factors that contribute to the culture of violence that dominates the United States and the rest of the world. Blame is assigned to video games, psychiatric drugs, the media, gangs, movies, illegal drug trafficking, and firearms. Each of these has been cited as contributing factors to the high amount of gun homicides in this country. The mass shootings that have occurred in the past year are beyond troubling and rightfully have left the citizens of the United States scrambling for answers that could prevent similar horrific acts from occurring in the future. In order to make our schools, shopping malls, movie theaters and other attractions safer, we need to enhance the ability for individuals to defend their own life and the lives of others who are unable to defend themselves.

President Obama unveiled his federal gun control proposal hours ago. As expected, he was flanked by young children and completed the press conference by high-fiving and hugging each child. Even the most sycophantic supporters of the President must admit that Mr. Obama is exploiting these youngsters in order to make his agenda more emotionally appealing. Educated observers will categorize Mr. Obama’s behavior as being the height of hypocrisy. These individuals are correct to view the President’s actions today in conjunction with the murder of children in faraway lands at the hands of drone bombings. The United States Government’s stance of classifying these deaths as necessary collateral damage to the “War on Terror” and then exploiting children in this country to advance a dangerous agenda is sickening. It is hard to fathom a logical individual reacting with anything less than outrage to Obama’s use of children in order to shield and soften one of the most authoritarian decrees in the countries’ history.

Most honest people would refer to a President that practices this type of behavior as a monster. Fortunately, there exists a growing number of individuals that have awakened to the President’s despicable use of drone warfare and the resulting collateral damage that frequently results in the death of young children in Pakistan, Yemen, and many other far way lands. It is disturbing that more reporters in the “watchdog” media are not concerned with the safety of children in Pakistan? Do the members of the establishment media believe that only American children deserve the privilege of being raised in a safe environment?

Collectivist politicians on both sides of the aisle and the establishment media have used these recent mass shootings to advance a gun control agenda aimed to restrict an individual’s ability to defend their life and property. They have done this while ignoring the mass killings by the United States Government of innocent people and children in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. It is shocking to witness the hypocrisy of those on the left who now approve of mass killings in foreign lands in the name of national security. Equally disturbing is their call to trust government officials in disarming citizens and entrust them with the responsibility of protecting children. It has been astounding to witness how quickly liberal, anti-self-defense advocates have formulated a cohesive message around three basic arguments. First, they want to bring back and expand the ban “assault” style rifles. Second, they insisted that high capacity magazines need to be eliminated because they serve no self-defense purpose. Lastly, they claim there is a link between the high gun ownership rate in the United States and the high gun homicide rates, claiming that more guns equals more violence.

I do not believe that the majority of Americans who believe more gun regulation will make us safer are stupid or evil. They simply do not take into account the positive role free, armed men play in deterring violent crime. If they did, they would know that the areas where we see the highest amount of violent crime occur is in areas where guns are banned.

The issue of violence is complex. It cannot be solved by drafting legislation to strip individuals of the right to own certain instruments. Simply because certain “weapons” have been utilized by criminals to commit violent acts does not mean that restricting the supply of certain “weapons” will reduce the overall number of violent acts. An object does not commit a violent act by itself. In order for a violent act to occur, an individual has to make a choice to use an object in a harmful manner towards another individual or their property. Baseball bats, knives, guns, vehicles, rolling pins, box cutters, or bags of fertilizer do not strike fear into the heart of a man when they are sitting on a table in a locked room, away from human touch. Only if you put the knife in the hands of a mugger, the box cutter in the hands of a plane hijacker, or the fertilizer in the hands of a bomb maker, do the objects become instruments of violence and destruction. In contrast, put the knife in the hands of a butcher, the box cutter in the hands of a mail clerk, or the fertilizer in the hands of a horticulturalist, and the objects become tools that enhance the value of an individual. The same is true with guns. A gun in the hands of a crazed killer is certainly frightening. A gun used in self-defense saves lives. Recently, a young boy used his father’s assault rifle to shoot two intruders that broke into their house when their parents were not home. The boy used the weapon properly to protect himself and his young sister.

Gun control advocates have been comparing the low amount of gun deaths in the UK to the high number in the US and using this to justify a gun ban in the United States. Proponents of gun control fail to mention the incredibly high violent crime rate in the UK. In 2011, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100K people in the UK. In contrast, the US had 466 violent crimes per 100K people in 2011. That is over 4 times more violent crime! If banning guns yields a less violent society, then a country like the United Kingdom which has banned fire arms, should have a very low violent crime rate. This simply is not the case. Acts of violence occur because of the evil that exists in the heart of the people, not because of the availability of an object. These statistics lend credence to the argument that the availability of weapons to be utilized for purposes of self defense is incredibly important to decreasing violent acts in society.

It is important to clarify that even the most ardent supporters of gun control and gun bans do not want to take guns from all individuals in society. They champion a policy of disarming individual citizens, but endorse the continuation of policies that allow employees of the State to carry firearms. Essentially these people are endorsing a policy that only provides the necessary needs to defend oneself to certain classes of society. To my knowledge, there are no politicians, activists, or media members calling for the disarming of police officers. Why is a police officer allowed certain rights in defending his life and private citizen afforded a differing set of rights? In the eyes of the State, their lives must not be equal.

Without a doubt, guns can be harmful when used recklessly. Police officers frequently display questionable judgment and erratic behavior when choosing to use their firearms to “protect” the public. This article from the Tribune Review explains a recent terrifying incident in Pittsburgh where cops unleashed fire into a vehicle in the middle of a crowded street.

“Sydnee Lucas watched a car zoom past her on the South Side early Sunday, heard the shots and then felt the pain. Lucas, 24, was among hundreds of people on the sidewalks outside East Carson Street‘s bars and nightclubs when five Pittsburgh police officers opened fire on a car. A stray bullet grazed her lower back. “Someone could have been killed — an innocent bystander,” said her father, Paul Lucas, 53, of Monroeville. “Talking about it, I get angry again. Things like this can‘t happen. You just endangered the public on something that didn‘t require this kind of force.” Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said police acted to “keep residents safe” when officers shot the driver of a car and his mother in the passenger seat at the culmination of a 5-mile police pursuit through several communities. Officers fired at several points along East Carson during the pursuit that started when the driver ran a red light in Homestead at about 1:40 a.m., police said.”

If left in irresponsible or evil hands, even in the hands of a highly trained police officer, guns can hurt or kill innocent people. We are all humans and humans are an imperfect species. For this reason, if it was possible, I would be in favor on striking guns from existence. This stance probably surprises many people that know me well. Those that are close to me know how much I enjoy hunting. Although, if a genie appeared and granted me the ability to remove guns from this earth, there would be no hesitation, they would be gone in the blink of an eye. Of course, if the genie gave me three wishes the other two would be to eliminate all governments and institute an anarcho-capitalist society! If guns were stricken from existence, hunting would become more challenging, but the transition to becoming a bow hunter would be enjoyable and something I have planned on pursuing anyway. Alas, it simply is not feasible to eliminate guns from existence. With this being the case, it only makes sense to own a weapon equal to one a potential criminal might utilize.

Since guns are here to stay it is vital that free men have access to the weapon of their choice in order to best defend their family and property. The laws that President Obama and liberals on the left are pushing to enact only serve to make law abiding citizens less safe. Banning the sale of high capacity magazine is senseless legislation. Even a novice gun owner understands how easy it is to change a magazine. Someone that would plan ahead to commit a crime or murder many would plan to bring many magazines with them. This is exactly what the mentally deranged killers in Aurora and Sandy Hook chose to do. By limiting the size of a magazine, law abiding individuals that own a gun and one magazine are further hindered from defending themselves. Instead of being allowed by the law sufficient fire power to defend their family against an intruder, they only get what the government allows.

How does the government know how much ammo you need to protect your family when a gang of intruders invade your private property? They don’t, but would rather force the law abiding citizen to scramble to reload or anticipate the intrusion in advance by hiding many magazines in order to ensure sufficient firepower to protect their family. This is not the movies, home invasions don’t occur in slow motion with theme music in the background. My hope is that I never encounter such a situation, but if I do, then you better believe I will have the biggest magazine allowed by law.

Removing guns from law abiding citizens does not decrease violence; it simply makes self-defense much more difficult and less fair for law abiding individuals. It is interesting that the gun grabbers are making a clear distinction to confiscate assault rifles. Calling something an assault rifle is just a buzz word to make that type of gun sound more dangerous. The establishment uses this naming mechanism for this purpose. When this occurs you have to ask yourself, “Who benefits from the distortion of the naming of this weapon?”

I’ve shot “assault” rifles before and they are not terribly accurate and more suited for defense against an overwhelming rush from several people, rather than home defense in tight quarters. Most are not accurate because they utilize a combat trigger that is much more difficult to pull. This is by design, because during combat when you are sliding under fences and jumping around cliffs you don’t want to bump a hair trigger and shoot your buddy. I would not want one for home defense, although I have thought about buying one simply because they may stop making them. Perhaps if I owned a shop or store in a major city that could experience a natural disaster or riots, then you better believe I would want one to defend myself when all hell breaks loose. This happened during the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict when Korean shop owners were armed with “assault” rifles and were able to defend their merchandise, their families, and themselves.

I agree that we have more gun deaths than we should. We have more violent deaths in general than any developed society should. Law abiding citizens must demand the right to defend themselves and their families against psychotic, evil people. We have to encourage our family, friends, and neighbors to look at the gun control debate logically. Strip the emotion and children out of the President’s speech today and you are left with empty, authoritarian demands.

The next time you find yourself in a discussion with a friend centered on the issue of gun control ask them this question: “Would a thief be more comfortable breaking into a house that he knew for a fact the tenants were not armed or a house where there was even a slight possibility the tenants were trained to defend themselves with a gun?” If your friend is honest they will select the former scenario. And if you are a gun owner, your friend should thank you for playing your part in protecting his life and property.

Update: Thursday 3:15 PM

It has been brought to my attention that the numbers I used above to compare the violent crime rate in the UK versus the US are not accurate. This is because the UK has a more broad definition of ‘violent crime’ than the US, therefore we were not comparing apples to apples. When using the the US method to calculate the UK violent crime rate, a best estimate would be 776 per 100,000 people. This is still almost double the US rate of of 403 per 100,000 people in 2010. All of the details can be found below in Ben Swann’s most recent, Reality Check.

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!

FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather