That phrase is hated and derided by the anti-gun lobby, but it's starkly and undeniably true.
Further evidence of that truth has just come to light in Britain, where the Home Office's British Crime Survey has released its latest figures.
Sixty people a week are being wounded as gun crime continues to rise, Home Office figures have revealed.
Firearms incidents rose by four per cent last year to just under 10,000 - meaning that guns are now featuring in almost 30 offences every day.
The number of people killed or wounded rose to 3,048.
. . .
The four per cent year-on-year rise in gun crime comes despite massive police efforts to crack down on illegal firearms.
During 2007 some 49 people were shot dead. down from 56 the year before. The number of serious-injuries also fell, from 424 to 355, but there was a surge in less serious injuries, up five per cent from 2,518 to 2,644.
The number of threats with guns rose by the same proportion to 5,282.
This, in a nation that banned the private possession of almost all handguns in 1997. Even the national Olympic team has to practice abroad.
Why can't anti-gunners get their heads around straightforward, simple logic?
If you ban guns, only those who respect and obey the law will obey the ban.
Criminals don't obey the law in the first place. Why are we surprised when they disobey yet another law, banning the tools of their trade?
Banning guns disarms the good guys, not the bad guys. The results are universally the same, and are reflected in the latest figures from Britain. No surprise there.
A gun is an inanimate object. I could place a gun on my desk right now, loaded, cocked, safety catch off, pointing right at me . . . and nothing would happen. Without a finger on the trigger, it won't go bang. It's not the gun that's the threat - it's the person wielding it.
When a child is killed by a drunk driver, we don't blame the car - we blame the person behind the wheel. When a pilot misjudges his landing and crashes an aircraft, we don't blame the plane - we blame the person flying it. Yet, when a gun is used in a crime, the anti-gunners go into hysterics blaming the gun, rather than the person wielding it.
An inanimate object is morally neutral. It's neither good nor evil. It can be used for good, or for evil, but the good or evil of its use is determined by the person using it, not its own intrinsic nature. I can use a baseball bat for perfectly good and legitimate purposes, like knocking a ball around the park . . . or I can fracture innocent skulls with it. Same bat, same operator, but whether the action is good or evil depends on my use of the bat - not the bat itself.
To argue otherwise makes no rational sense whatsoever.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. Logic and rational thought have never been part of the anti-gunners' platform . . .
In the same way, not all so-called "gun violence" is bad. (I can hear the anti-gunners screaming already!) Gun violence by a criminal is certainly bad. However, gun violence by a citizen legitimately defending him- or herself against criminal attack isn't bad - it's good. (Provided, of course, that it uses only sufficient force to stop the attack and doesn't become vigilante justice.) When a policeman uses his gun to shoot a felon, in general, that's a good thing: because if he hadn't, the felon might have hurt or killed him, or someone else, or gotten away to hurt and kill another day.
No, Bambi, not all gun violence is bad.
When you read the screeds of anti-gun propaganda, think about it. Who's acknowledging reality? The gun-grabbers? Or those who recognize reality when it slaps them in the face?