Equality. Fraternity. Crime.

While there are exceptions to every rule, the typical gun control advocate leans significantly to the left, supporting feminism, welfare, and the like, and generally pushing equality as the highest principle of a civilized society. This typical supporter of gun control does not realize it, but he or she is actually tearing down that central principle of equality in their support for the restriction of firearms.

Take feminism for an example. No matter the cries of the ardent feminists of today, men are physically stronger than women. If a man assaults a woman without a firearm, the terms are decidedly unequal in 9 out of 10 situations. Even if the woman does have a weaker weapon such as pepper spray or a knife, the physical superiority of the man will likely allow him to prevail. Now let firearms enter the picture. If the woman has a firearm and the basic knowledge of its use, no physical strength on the part of the attacker can allow him to somehow dodge the bullets or withstand a hit. Even if both the woman and the man have firearms, the terms are much more even in the situation. The man's advantage in strength will now play no role in the conflict, only shooting skill, and shooting skill is not naturally inclined to favor either sex.

As another example, think of the elderly. The elderly are often incapable of adequately defending themselves without some sort of advantage on their side; the possession of a firearm can clearly mean the difference between life and death. This argument works for the very young as well. While youth possession of firearms is often debated, no one can deny that a responsible young person who is trained in gun usage has a much greater advantage in a situation such as a home invasion than one who hasn't. Once again, guns become the great equalizer for those weaker individuals who are forced to defend themselves.

Now try support for the poor. Leftists decry the possession of firearms as dangerous to the low-income, inner-city residents, but the opposite is actually true. Firearms are a means for the poor to defend themselves against the elite. While there may be varying degrees of quality of firearms, a bullet is a bullet, is a bullet. The damage a cheap, Saturday-special handgun does is just as real as the damage a military-grade weapon does. Making firearms unavailable to the poor by enacting stringent regulations or taxes on their production, sale, or possession means higher crime rates in low-income areas, yet again defiling the social liberal's dream of equality.

Firearms are not some exclusively dangerous hazard to society. Rather, they are a tool that when used unwisely can result in great harm, but when used responsibly can and will bring far greater benefit than cost. Getting rid of them would set society back from decades or even centuries of progress, and would destroy the very principles that their detractors hold so dear.