In the wake of the tragic mass school shooting in Florida, once again the nation now finds itself gripped in a heated battle over gun rights. While a rising number of extremists on the hard left are now openly starting to call for a ban on all private firearm use, despite the fact that this almost only ever has the opposite of its intended effect when implemented, you seemingly never find anyone on the Right brave enough to argue for the opposite. If security and peace are indeed the ultimate goals, I suggest instead of disarming the population, we arm it more heavily than ever. Let us level the playing field between the criminals who would do us harm and the average citizen who merely wants to go about his day in peace. Instead of a new law limiting personal firearm use, let us provide every adult legal citizen in good legal standing with a weapon.

It’s not as if something like this hasn’t been proven to work before either, as the small town of Kennesaw Georgia moved in that direction years ago with positive results. Kennesaw passed a law in 1982 requiring all households to own both a working firearm and ammunition for it. Following its passage, it wasn’t long before the crime rate dropped an astounding 50 percent. Surely the type of crime statistics a politician on either side of the aisle would normally love to take credit for at every possible chance.

Before my fellow Libertarian’s reading, get up in arms over the idea of being required to own something. Let’s take a look at the actual wording of the law Kennesaw passed and see if it couldn’t serve as a reasonable model for the nation as a whole.

Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

To put it plainly, residents of the town were required to own firearms, unless of course they couldn’t afford guns, couldn’t use guns, couldn’t legally own guns, or just simply didn’t want to have guns for most any reason. A more accurate description of this “law” is merely that residents in the town were highly encouraged to have firearms in their homes, a fact that was advertised widely. That last part is the key, as it was this increased risk of potentially having criminal activity met with an armed response, which led to the crime rate being halved almost instantly. Whether or not most citizens really were carrying was a non-issue, the fact there was a decent chance they might be was a strong enough crime deterrent all on its own.

Amazingly the drop in the crime rate wasn’t even the original goal of this still on the books law. It was just a happy byproduct of what was meant to be a political statement in response to the handgun ban implemented by the town of Morton Grove, Illinois back in 81. A ban that was later reluctantly lifted following the famous ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller where the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual’s right to bear arms. A lieutenant in the Kennesaw Police Department, Craig Graydon, said this regarding the town’s law, “It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens’ second amendment rights to own firearms.”

The most important takeaway from Kennesaw remains the fact that the simple threat that any citizen might be carrying is often the most effective way to deter crime. Famous magician and noted Libertarian Penn Jillette has also argued in favor of such a practice, advocating the practical benefits to be had if we issued a gun to every American woman. Considering that over 200,000 women already use guns to protect themselves against sexual crimes like rape every year in America, maybe Penn speaking here below on his old Showtime show Bullshit, has a point.

In today’s modern America, with our Liberal dominated media, it’s almost hard to remember a time where guns weren’t spoken of in an almost constant negative light. Despite the Leftist rhetoric that guns are to blame for all the worlds’ evils, this bad reputation is hardly deserved. In fact, guns are used 80 times more often to prevent or stop crime than they are to take lives in non-self-defense. While the likes of Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats will claim we have a dangerous gun epidemic in America, these same Liberals ignore the inconvenient fact that crimes making use of firearms are down upwards of 68% from their high in the early 90’s.

The bottom line is this. Despite what Liberals say, American’s will not be safer if the Government takes away our gun rights. In fact, we will inherently be much less secure without the right to protect ourselves. The only policy which might actually lead to less violent crime is also ironically the same one no one will ever dare suggest, the full-scale arming of the population. After all, who is going to seriously try and shoot up a movie theater, where everyone has a Beretta sitting next to their popcorn?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here