There are certain people who have always been adamant about their crusade to rid these United States of dangerous guns. They claim these “fully semi-automatic assault weapons” are so powerful they can blow a man-sized hole in a dime from 37,000 feet away. The problem with statements like these is they come from a place of fantasy. These people who know nothing about firearms conjure up images of scary black tubes shooting thunder and fire to spook their fellow anti-gunners during story time around the campfire. But like all myths, many of the points gun control advocates bring up are based on lies. For example:

You couldn’t buy a cannon

In 2021, Joe Biden made the bold claim that when the Second Amendment was written, it limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon they could own. The president claimed certain weapons like cannon, for example, were expressly prohibited. However, the reality is during the time of the founding fathers, all free citizens – soldiers as well as civilians – were allowed to own firearms of any kind. The only people who were restricted from owning firearms were black slaves, which was only because they were seen as property and not people. Even then, both Varnum’s 1st Rhode Island Regiment of the Continental Army and Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment of the British Army consisted mostly of musket-armed African Americans.

The average American of the 18th century could own anything from common flintlock pistols to shotguns, Kentucky rifles, and yes, even cannons. If a gunsmith knew how to make it and the client had the coin, nothing was off the table. Cannons had to be constructed for privately-owned ships to defend themselves against pirates that roamed the high seas. Many of these private ships soon found their way into the Continental Navy. A century later, the Texas empresario Green DeWitt obtained a cannon from the Mexican government for defense of Gonzales against the Comanche. It is notable that DeWitt was not a general, and the people he had under his protection – and used their cannon – were simply ordinary families, not soldiers. During the revolution, when the same Mexican government who gave DeWitt’s colony its cannon ordered it to be returned, the Texians replied “Come and Take It!” Both the phrase and the cannon were embroidered onto a flag which endures as a symbol of gun rights in Texas to this day.

Gonzales banner Flag, come and take it flag from Flags Unlimited | US Flags
The “Come and Take It” flag of 1835.

America is the nation with the most gun violence on earth

This is demonstrably false. While the number of gun deaths is high in the United States, it’s not as bad as Brazil. As of this writing, there were 37,040 people killed by guns in the United States in 2022, while 49,437 were killed in Brazil. The home of carnival and samba also leads the world in the total number of firearms deaths, caused mostly by gang violence and homicide. In contrast, the high numbers of gun deaths in the United States come mostly from suicide. In a 2020 study conduced by Pew research center, 54% of gun-related deaths in the country were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384). If we were to rank the United States by gun violence per 100,000 people, the US falls to 35th place in the world, with El Salvador topping the charts at 35.5 deaths per 100,000 people.

People who advocate for gun control refuse to accept the fact the United States is a developed country that is at peace. In their minds, they believe America is unraveling at the seams due to what they perceive as an uncontrolled gun violence.

The truth of the matter is the United States is not run by warlords or cartels, and its leaders and citizens don’t have to worry about things like domestic armed insurgencies, violent ethnic cleansings or gang wars fought with armored vehicles and air support, ergo things countries at the top of the gun violence list worry about on the daily. The outright lie that America is the most violent nation on earth would have you believe downtown Detroit is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kabul put together. You have to ask yourself: does that make any sense?

Banning guns reduces crime

The United Kingdom banned guns and is now the knife crime capital of Europe. Coincidentally, gun crime is on the increase in the British Isles, despite being illegal. Colombians, who are permitted to purchase weapons under very specific circumstances but can’t carry them in public, are overrun with violent drug cartels. A committed murderer will always find a way to commit murder. Banning guns in a country with an existing history of gun crime will only disarm law abiding citizens, since criminals (being criminals) would have no intention of giving up the piles of illegal guns they use to commit crimes.

On another note, a gun ban needs to be both realistic and enforceable. Lawless Somalia, for example, actually has a total gun ban in place. Obviously, nobody from the Somali government is willing or able to confiscate guns from the various tribal militias or pirates, so the ban cannot affect the people it’s meant to stop. South Africa, a substantially richer nation, also has very strict gun control but yet manages to surpass even Somalia in gun violence.

What gun control advocates don’t realize is that any total firearm ban attempted by the federal government would very likely turn into something far worse than a Somalia situation. Instead of reducing crime, a total gun ban would be seen by millions of American gun owners as an attack on their God-given constitutional rights to self-defense. Pro-constitution law enforcement officers would start mysteriously “calling in sick.” Any attempts to enforce a gun ban would end just like they did when General Gage ordered all of Boston to surrender their weapons. It would be ugly, and it would actually push the gun crime numbers to record highs.

Assault weapons

Google the word “assault weapon.” Every time this term is mentioned, it comes from the keyboard of an pro-gun control journalist or from the mouth of an pro-gun control senator. This term is almost exclusively used by anti-gun media in North America and rarely exists outside of this context. However, when you ask a gun control advocate what an “assault weapon” really is, you’ll get dramatically different definitions ranging from the confusing to the ridiculous. For example, the federal government defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine which also possesses several tactical features. Despite this federal definition, states can’t seem to agree which types of guns it applies to. For example, an M1 Carbine, as long as it has a reduced capacity ten-round magazine, is perfectly legal in California. The same weapon is considered an assault weapon in New Jersey and is mentioned by name in the state assault weapon ban. More absurd definitions range from

It’s also mentally baffling that an “assault weapon” is defined mostly by cosmetic features that provide no advantages to the weapon’s killing power, such as collapsible stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and threaded barrels. It seems to be that lawmakers who advocate an assault weapon ban are either A) clueless about how guns work, B) virtue signaling to their gun-hating constituents, or C) only want to ban “popular” and “easy to use” guns in a conscious attempt to make shooting harder. The truth of the matter is “assault weapons” exist only as figments of an anti-gunner’s imagination. The demonized AR-15 is functionally the same as a Ruger Mini-14, yet the Mini-14 isn’t seen as “evil” because it looks like a “peaceful” hunting rifle.

The anti-gun media’s obsession with the “assault weapon” is just propaganda. The term is derogatory and paints a target on the AR-15 and weapons like it simply because they are the most popular weapons used by the American gun-owner. If the most popular weapon in this country was the M1 Carbine, they’d be trying to pass legislation to ban that just as hard.

Gun buyback programs work

In short? No, they don’t. The intent of a gun buyback program is to get guns off the street so they won’t be used in future crimes. The problem is the only people who actually turn in their guns to a gun buyback program are the ones who have no intention of using them. A quick Google image search for gun buyback programs reveals tables full of old shotguns and bolt-action hunting rifles. The “evil” black AR-15 rarely makes an appearance. In reality, most of the firearms turned in during buybacks are either wall-hangers, non-firing weapons, broken weapons, or old and obsolete weapons. In other words, gun owners use buyback programs as a place to turn in junk. A criminal knows that his gun is his literal money-maker, and would literally rather go to jail than part with it. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research correctly points out the fact gun buyback programs may fail to reduce gun violence if the price city governments are willing to pay gun owners is less than the value of the firearm. A hundred dollar gift card for an illegally acquired fully automatic Mac-10 is not a fair deal. A gun buyback program may actually increase the odds of gun crime since it shows criminals that law abiding citizens are voluntarily turning in their firearms, leaving their homes defenseless.

Don’t believe the gun control lies, stick to your guns (literally) and always view gun control with the suspicion it deserves. What do you think? Will gun control ever gain traction in the United States? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

@LoyalCrusader01 and Thamer Alanizi contributed to this article

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.