“Gun Control” is Misnamed
Try: “Disarm the Victims”
Every time there is an insane person who shoots innocents, as in Tucson, we are all shocked and saddened. No one wants these acts to continue. People want to do something.
However, you know what they say about good intentions.
With the best of purposes, many misguided leaders have called for stiffer gun control in the wake of the shootings. This occurs each and every time there is newsworthy gun violence. They seldom decry the way the mentally ill are shuffled through the system, and multiple warning signs are ignored. But they often fixate on the instruments of the violence: the guns.
First off, let’s be clear that guns are not good or evil. They are inanimate objects. Contrary to some uninformed souls’ opinions, they never go off by themselves. Like money, they can be used for good or for evil. If an evil wife pays a hit man $5,000.00 to have her husband murdered, no one suggests we ban money. Money, guns, matches and automobiles are all items that can be used for good or evil.
Secondly, it is already illegal for people to use guns for illegal purposes. If the criminals were going to follow the laws, gun violence would not exist anyway. Additional laws further restricting firearms only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens. They are the ones that follow the laws to begin with. My understanding is that criminals, when asked, prefer unarmed victims.
Thirdly, the problem is not too many guns. One could argue that there are too few. How would that shooting have changed if several of the heroic victims had been armed? You know, common sense is about as rare now as fiscal conservatism in government. But, how many times have you heard of a police station being robbed? A donut shop? A hunting camp? A shooting range? What do these have in common? Trained, lawful citizens wearing guns at the ready. That is also why we have armed air marshals flying randomly on our flights, and armed security at many banks.
Oddly, Arizona has liberal gun laws, consistent with the Second Amendment. Many could have been carrying legally that day. Who would have thought that it would bee needed for an event hosted by a grocery store? If we have learned anything by Tucson, let us agree that more trained citizens wearing guns would have actually saved lives. As established, it deters violence on the whole. Further, the guns don’t cause crime anymore than matches cause arson.
If you do not wish to carry, that is fine. Don’t take the illogical position that the government should disarm all victims! If, God forbid, a criminal is ever holding you or your child hostage with a knife at the throat, I suspect you would want the police to come with more than mace and a nightstick to deal with him.
Mr. Peel may be available to address your church or community group. Contact his office through www.PeelLawFirm.com