Our second amendment rights seem to be a thorn in the side of democrats, and they’re getting more and more crafty at trying to ban our firearms. Most second amendment advocates get upset by this, and rightfully so, if we didn’t they would succeed. That being said it will never happen in this country like it has in others. The basis of their arguments to restrict or ban our firearms are based on myths with no real proof or statistics behind their arguments. As a licensed firearms instructor certified to teach in many categories from concealed weapons, hand guns, shotguns, & rifles it upsets me the outrageous and ridiculous arguments the left uses to accomplish their political agenda.. 90% of the people against firearms have never shot one, never took a class for any research, obviously never talked to any legitimate gun professional to vet their “facts & statistics”, if they did they would have a much better argument if they had one at all.

I classify anti-gun advocates into two groups of people. One group has lost a loved one or child to a firearm related incident, I can sympathize with this group and at least understand why they want a ban, even though I don’t agree the end would justify the means. The other group are usually democrats and liberals that jump on band wagons simply because its whats hip to do in the eyes of their colleagues. Some of them simply have a political agenda that would benefit them to accomplish the gun ban.

Banning Guns Will Not Stop Violent Crime
Most anti-gun people try to make the argument that if we didn’t have guns a lot less people would die or stop mass killings. That makes as much sense as trying to ban forks so people can’t get fat. Violent people are going to do violent things and they will accomplish their goal by any means necessary. The gun doesn’t magically give these people the idea or the means to do these evil things. Another argument they love to throw around is that in the days before firearms existed you didn’t hear of a mass stabbing or a mass strangling, and that argument is even more idiotic than the first one, they need to crack open a history book. Mass killings were common, thousands and thousands  people were slaughtered in the days before firearms in the name of religion, politics, and wars.

U.K. banned their guns in 1997 and have only seen one year (2010) where crime rates were lower. You have to be careful when looking at violent crime statistics because of cross sectioning data. Countries build their statistical fact patterns many different ways, what some consider a felony or self defense others countries don’t, this creates a blurry statistical line with no hard line comparable data. Anti-gunners use these flaws in statistics to bend the truth to meet their narrative. The ban also did not stop criminals from being able to get guns, there have been a large number of criminals arrested in the possession of a firearm in the U.K. Basically all countries that have banned firearms see the same trend in violent crime dropping very little if any. That being said, if we look on the arguments on the other side of the isle statistically there is no proof that crime would drop if everyone was armed either (or I couldn’t find any statistics, ones I could vet anyways). That won’t be a popular statement with most gun owners but this article is written in pure fact, good or bad. Personally, I believe it would deter a criminal if they knew you were armed and this has been stated by different criminals from time to time. I don’t however agree with people when they think that situations like mass shootings can be stopped if people were armed. The fact of the matter is 95% of people carrying a concealed weapon are not trained to handle that  type of high intense situation. Take it from someone who trains people in this very field, it’s not as easy as it sounds. I will say however there are numerous cases (of course never reported in the media) that concealed carriers have came to aid of different people during assaults, spousal abuse, and even a couple of kid napping attempts. These were successful because the concealed carrier was dealing with one or two people, much different then trying to sort out the confusion and violence of a mass shooting or similar incident.

Assault Rifles Are More Dangerous Than Regular Firearms And Should Be Ban
This is the argument that probably pisses me off the most because its an utter fabrication enforced by scare tactics. People who debate this point know absolutely nothing about firearms, whatsoever.
People have the general misconception that because the military uses it, it has some advantage over other firearms. What most people don’t know however, there are two versions of the assault rifle. One version is for the military, it has three different firing rates; semi-automatic, three round burst, fully automatic (I have heard rumors of the military doing away with the fully automatic mode). The civilian version that any law abiding civilian can buy has semi-automatic rate of fire ONLY. For those who aren’t familiar with these terms let me give you the definitions for them;. Semi-automatic means that only one round of ammunition is discharged per trigger pull. To complete a 30 round magazine, the trigger has to be pulled 30 separate times (this is pretty much the only version most civilians can get), three round burst means that three rounds of ammunition are discharged in concession per trigger pull. You have to pull the trigger 10 separate times to discharge 30 rounds of ammunition. Fully automatic means that rounds will discharge in concession as long as the trigger is pulled until the magazine is completed (technically it should be trigger “press” but most people know it as trigger pull). So this means other than the look of the firearm there is essentially no difference between a civilian version assault rifle and a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle that uses a bottom fed magazine and most have high capacity 30 round magazines you can purchase for them, most even have “tactical” stocks you can order. Before hard line gun people crucify me and say the assault rifle is a gas operated rotating bolt and the normal semi automatic rifle’s action functions from blow back, it’s a moot point. Unless your talking 3 round burst or fully automatic it does not effect the semi-automatic function or rate of fire between assault rifles and hunting rifles.
There are also rumors you can buy a cheap kit to make the civilian version have the three round and fully automatic capabilities, this is another myth that is not true. When a civilian assault rifle is manufactured, the lower receiver is not machined to accept the bolt for automatic use. So unless your a serious gun smith and machinist this point is also moot. That being said, they do sell what is called a “bump” stock or “bump” trigger. This is a device that manipulates the recoil of the firearm enabling you to quickly pull the trigger in concession so that it has a similar rate of fire that of three round burst or fully automatic. These devices are cumbersome to use, do not work correctly half the time, and as far as I know not even that popular because a lot of times they don’t work as advertised.
In fact, the only way a civilian can purchase a fully automatic firearm is if they have a Class 3 firearms license. It takes EXTENSIVE background checks, a meeting with the head of your local law enforcement, and roughly $3,000.00+ to get this license. Once you get the license you can only purchase pre-ban automatic weapons and can expect to pay $6,000.00 and up for one, This represents a very very small portion of the population and in fact I haven’t heard of a fully automatic assault rifle being used in any mass shootings. Assault rifles are very popular and this simply why so many are used in these mass shootings. It gives the shooter no real tactical advantage.

To Outlaw Firearms Would Create Black Market Crime
This is another reason that I find this argument stupid. Lets say the left was successful and outlawed firearms, what would that accomplish? That would accomplish law abiding citizens not to be able to purchase a firearm. People that purchase firearms by legal means make up a minuet percentage of firearms related crime. People that commit violence with firearms do not buy the firearm they use by legal means, they buy a firearm off the street that was smuggled in to this country. Banning guns will NOT stop the flow of illegal firearms coming into this country. Take drugs being smuggled into the United States for instance, law enforcement stops very little drugs being brought into this country and it would be the same with firearms. It’s not a slam to our law enforcement, they are just simply out gunned, out manned, and out financed.
To outlaw our firearms would literally effect criminals in no way what so ever and deprives the honest citizen of being able to defend themselves and that is exactly what would happen if this ban were ever to be accomplished.