“Warning: You have probably heard this argument a dozen times. Gun control does not prevent weapons from getting to the bad guys. It only keeps them out of the hands of people who want to protect themselves from bad guys. Unfortunately for the gun-control lobby, the cliché is true.”
“

Warning: You have probably heard this argument a dozen times.

Gun control does not prevent weapons from getting to the bad guys. It only keeps them out of the hands of people who want to protect themselves from bad guys.

Unfortunately for the gun-control lobby, the cliché is true.

A study last decade said that only 7 percent of armed criminals obtained a gun from licensed gun shops.

So basically, you can limit 7 percent of criminals – the ones who buy their guns legitimately – but you restrict the law-abiding folks from defending themselves or, perhaps more important, the peace of mind from knowing they can.

That said, I don’t like how the National Rifle Association is so protective of having restrictions on buying a gun.

Law-abiding people should have no problem pushing back a hunting trip a few days so the government can ensure they haven’t used a weapon violently before.

Also, gun companies should have no problem with installing safeties to prevent accidental killings.

Of course, people are wrong by saying guns could have completely prevented Seung-hui Cho from killing 32 people at Virginia Tech two weeks ago.

A guy who has loses his marbles will care not if he is gunned down in the middle of a massacre, and therefore, the deterrent factor does not apply.

Gun-control advocates point to urban areas that have strict gun control still show high crime rates.

But if you think for one minute that a heinous thug is unable to get a firearm because of a law, you’re na’ve. Gun control won’t do a thing for the ghetto.

The social issues run much deeper – miles deeper.

And there you have it: an argument for guns without the mention of the semi-antiquated Second Amendment.

“