Thursday December 5, 2019
SNc Channels:



Jan-29-2013 15:25printcomments

More Guns - Not Fewer - Is The Answer

Critical thinking suggests that reducing violent crime requires a non-linear solution, which starts with firearms training...

Steve Siebold
Steve Siebold

(MILWAUKEE, WI) - The school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut will probably go down in the books as one of the most heinous acts ever committed. 26 innocent people, mainly young children, were killed, and a nation was left heartbroken and grief-Stricken.

As sad an event as this was, the problem is it has clouded the judgment of a nation when it comes to the issue of gun control. We’re constantly hearing about the back and forth from those for and against various elements of gun control. Most interestingly, David Clarke Jr., the sheriff in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, grabbed the spotlight when he urged citizens to learn how to handle firearms so they can defend themselves, because he says, “simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

Gun control has always been a controversial subject in America, but it shouldn’t be. Those in favor of gun control are urging fast action, and their argument is based in emotional thinking instead of logical thinking. They are using their grief, anger, sadness and frustration to make the case for gun control. Critical thinking, devoid of emotion, suggests we need more guns, not fewer.

The irony is despite all the talk on gun control, Americans are stocking up. According to the National Rifle Association, over 100 million Americans own guns. That’s roughly 1/3 of the population, and 2.2 million background checks were performed alone last month, an increase of 58.6 percent over the same period in 2011.

Guns have the potential to save lives but we rarely hear about these stories. The fact is bad people will always have guns regardless of the laws, and good people should have the right to protect themselves. Banning guns only punishes the innocent and leaves them unable to fight back.

The current gun laws in some states protect the criminals more than the victims. Statistics from the U.S. National Crime Survey prove this. They show that if a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robbery will succeed 88% of the time, and the victim will be injured 25% of the time. If the victim resists with a gun, the robbery’s success rate falls to 30% and the injury rate falls to 17%.

The only people who win when gun control laws are enacted are the criminals. All these laws do is motivate robbers, muggers and thieves. A gun-toting public evens things out, and that’s why guns should stay legal and readily available.

Eliminating guns is parallel to outlawing cars because of drunk drivers, or banning airplanes from ever flying again because they were used in the September 11 attacks to kill so many people. It’s not guns that ultimately kill just like it’s not cars or airplanes that kill. In the case of Sandy Hook, Columbine and the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shootings, it’s mentally ill people that caused these tragedies. As usual, we’re having the wrong debate in this country.

The delusion is rooted in linear thinking that leads people to believe banning guns reduces violence and crime. This has been tried again and again and always fails. In 1996, Australia publically destroyed over 600,000 firearms in an attempt at gun control; and in 1997, armed robberies in Australia increased by 44%.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” This is from the man who penned the Declaration of Independence. If there was a pacifist among the founders, it was Jefferson. But his logic is hard to dispute and has nothing to do with the fact he said this over 200 years ago. Human nature hasn’t changed.

Critical thinking suggests that reducing violent crime requires a non-linear solution, which starts with firearms training, education and stricter laws for criminals who use guns and fewer laws for people who fire in self-defense.

In a perfect world we wouldn’t need guns. But until that happens, critical thinking suggests that we all exercise our second amendment rights, voice our support and keep a close eye on anti-gun crusaders who want to make our decisions for us. Gun ownership is not only practical; it’s our constitutional right, and even Sheriff David Clarke Jr. agrees.

Steve Siebold is author of the book Sex, Politics and Religion: How Delusional Thinking is Destroying America, and has been called one of the world’s foremost critical thinking experts.  Visit



Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Anonymous February 4, 2013 10:11 am (Pacific time)

If you take an honest look at the world, though, what do you think are the chances that we can stop insane violent people from doing insane violent things? Can we “make sure this never happens again”? Not a chance. It is an absolute certainty that evil and violent people will do evil and violent things in the future. The real questions are, how can we best protect ourselves and how can we minimize the number of these people in society. Why Liberals don’t like guns? Guns and people have lived together for centuries. It is liberals who don’t like guns, or gun owners. And when liberals don’t like something, they want it banned. But pinning down anti-gun people is challenging. They never specify what it is about guns they don’t like. Because guns don’t kill people any more than SUV’s run people down, or golf balls break windows on their own. The objection anti-gun liberals must have is that it’s the people who own guns that offend them. Always note many of them claim to be a gunowner, but that they want certain things stopped, even though they offer no proof that whatever that "is", that it can achieve the goal they state it will do. Their ultimate endgame is total confiscation via incremantalism. Honest law abiding people will not be made criminals by leftists, so the real endgame for western society should be no more leftists. 20th Century History is full of genocidal examples of what happens when leftist' gain absolute power. They begin the process by rigging the votes, and is that happening here?

Anonymous February 3, 2013 6:53 pm (Pacific time)

Steve the truth is, there can be no civil discussion, no honest exchange of ideas with gungrabbers. It's useless to try, in fact, it's actually counterproductive, and even dangerous. You can't have an honest exchange of ideas with people who are fundamentally dishonest, who try to hide their intentions and their agenda behind a smokescreen of lies. And if you think that isn't what they're up to, you need to go back and read, or reread their playbooks by people like Saul Alinsky. Those of you in Oregon, and in any other state that has a large percentage of your population as gunowners and have CHL's...just compare and contrast the gun crime stats with those that have stingent gun control laws. That is a highly empirical data-set that leftist's simply cannot debate honestly, because their theory of reducing crime is to have more gun laws, which are proven to actually increase violent crime. Most gun laws are not being enforced, and VP Biden last week remarked they don't "have the time" to investigate firearm background check refusals. Also take countries like the UK and Canada and see that their total violent crime rates, including the total count of homicides, rape, assault, etc., are signficantly higher than ours. The UK is 5 time higher. Well,it's half time, then off to the range with the kids.

Ralph E. Stone January 31, 2013 8:25 am (Pacific time)

Your 18-wheeler-machine gun-musket comments do not make any sense. No one is advocating banning guns as that would run afoul of the Second Amendment. According to the latest Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter. If those of us who favor stronger gun control laws are progressive, then I have a lot of company. More guns is a National Rifle Association solution to gun violence in this country. And it is not rational "critical thinking" to believe that more guns is the solution to gun violence in this country.

Steve January 30, 2013 2:13 pm (Pacific time)

Ralph's car analogy is most instructive...and revealing. Let's take it a few steps further and observe how not everyone is allowed to drive an 18-wheeler because of the potential for mayhem caused by an out-of-control driver. The same could be said for a machine gun.

Where it gets really illuminating is when the gun-control advocates call for banning all guns excepts muskets. That would be like banning all 4-wheeled cars. Kind of insane.

So kudos to Ralph's knee-jerk "progressive" reaction to the idea of having more guns around. His basically half-thought-out idea was a good start, but stops just short of being logical.

By the way, the real line in the sand is removing a human being's right to self-defense. You simply don't do that, no matter how many guns are hanging around. A person gets to own their own body and no amount of progressive illogic is going to change that fact of life. The only argument here is the argument of force against reason. These days reason is in dangerously short supply. The so-called Right and Left lock-step paradigm dictates the pre-written dialectic that leaves you and I defenseless.

They argue from opposite ends of the political spectrum and somehow reach the same conclusion. Only costumed agents of the government are entitled to protect themselves. All the rest of us have a duty to die in the name of the collective.

Hugh Curley January 30, 2013 1:27 pm (Pacific time)

Steve, I agree with you. People who do not want to carry or use guns do not have to; those that want to have them should be allowed to. The good thing is that the bad guys don't know if you are carrying or not so even the gun control advocates are protected by the 2nd amendment. The problem with calling the police is that it takes them too long to respond. The police station for me is over 4 miles away. Even in the school shootings, with police on the premise, it takes too long to respond. If some teachers and other school officials had guns, they could respond much faster. I am a life member of NRA, bu have been completely inactive for over 10 years.

Ralph E. Stone January 30, 2013 7:34 am (Pacific time)

I take issue with the premise of your article that more guns is the answer to gun violence in this country. The rush to gun control is not because of an emotional response to the Newtown killings. Rather it is taking advantage of the Newtown killings to overcome the lockstep opposition of the National Rifle Association lobby, in tandem with gunmakers and importers, military sympathizers, and far-right organizations. I would replace your auto analogy with the following: We don't ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. The president enacted 23 executive actions, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Thus, gun control is not designed to take guns away from Americans, which would violate the Second Amendment. In sum, it is irresponsible to advocate for more guns. I take it you are an avid member of the NRA.

[Return to Top]
©2019 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for January 28, 2013 | Articles for January 29, 2013 | Articles for January 30, 2013
Donate to and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin