The first clue that this argument is garbage is that it discusses “gun violence” as if violence with a gun is any different than violence with a sword, hammer, fist, car, etc.. The implication is that if you remove the guns then those violent deeds would disappear. However, experience has show that this is not the case.

The fact is that the argument, if it to have any legitimacy at all must discuss murder and assault rates, not “gun-violence” rates. The elements that lead people to commit such crimes against themselves or others remain there regardless of the presence or absence of guns. Do guns make it easier? Perhaps. But they also can be used to defend against those who seek to do harm to others. The accounting that anti-gun political groups use rarely even mention defensive gun use, let alone make any attempt to account for it.

There is also the very obvious longevity of the US democratic republic in comparison to most European democratic governments. One of the first things each dictator, or fascist does is to disarm the public “for their own good.” Only England once had anything that remotely resembled the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was modeled from the British Bill of Rights in 1689.

And for a while, things in a disarmed society look fine. It may even last for a generation or two before someone sees an opportunity to take over a disarmed population. But sooner or later, someone will see that opportunity and they will exploit it.

That is why we’re armed. It’s not to prevent individual deaths, but to keep our society stable. Maybe we should be asking why so many young men feel so depraved that they would even consider taking the life of another.