Expectations about passing more gun control legislation are based on emotional responses and such restrictions on American freedoms and rights are unlikely to accomplish the desired intent.
I don’t own a gun. But that doesn’t make me anti-gun. I served in the National Guard and was trained how to use a gun safely, while attempting to kill another human being who was trying to kill me. I understand that gun ownership makes some individuals feel more secure and safe in their homes. I have often considered purchasing one for that reason myself.
I hunted with my father as a young man, but never developed his enthusiasm for it, even though I certainly was appreciative of the meals prepared from the game he shot or caught. I know many gun owners who are very good, and safe, hunters today.
Individual gun ownership is not unique to America, but it is a part of the American culture, right or wrong. Individuals with guns were the pioneers of the expanse of America to the west, using them for securing food, securing their homes and valuables, and yes, even taking other people’s lands and valuables as well. In those harsh times, a gun was often a necessity for survival.
The Founding Fathers so respected the right for individual gun ownership they provided for it in the Bill of Rights, recognizing its importance over many other necessities for survival that existed at the time. But today, guns are not primarily used for feeding families or protecting homes from intrusion, but they quite often do serve those purposes.
In the aftermath of another mass shooting, the cry for gun control is at a fever pitch across the nation, with politicians and tv pundits and even late-night talk show hosts weighing in with emotion-based calls to disarm American citizens and rid the country of the plague that is gun violence.
Ending gun violence is certainly a most noble cause, but enacting restricting legislation cannot accomplish the goal. I cannot fathom the logic process that makes one believe the simple act of writing a “thou shalt not” on a piece of paper can bring an end to the evil that perpetrates mass shootings and everyday gun deaths.
Case in point, we already have a law that says “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” or something similar on the nation’s law books. I can’t imagine that someone who is willing to end the life of another person in violation of that law, would even stop to consider the statute against gun ownership.
Just like laws banning alcohol, drugs, pornography, and other moral issues, making guns illegal in the US would just lead to a black market enterprise, and the amount of violence usually associated with such actions. Making guns illegal won’t make them go away. They may become a little harder to get, and more expensive, but the net result will be making those responsible people who now own a gun for self-preservation vulnerable to criminals, and probably leading to even more gun deaths.
The Las Vegas shooter already violated several laws on the books before he took the first shot. Does anyone actually believe another law would have stopped him?
Gun control laws are virtually worthless because the gun is the tool the evil person used to commit the crime, not the reason for the commission of the crime. People have been killed by using homemade bombs, by driving vehicles into crowds, by throwing acid into innocent faces, and with swords and bayonets. It makes no more sense to ban guns than to ban automobiles or fertilizer in response to an attack.
How do you stop evil men from doing evil things? That has been debated throughout history, and no one has yet come up with an answer. Just as people used to say, you can’t legislate morality, you also cannot legislate goodness and kindness to your fellow man.
We cannot and should not abandon our rights and freedoms, including gun ownership. Freedom is much too important to restrict with useless laws that fail to accomplish their idealistic goals. Too many have fought and died to give us that choice.
I’m tired of these asinine assertions that there’s talk of banning or taking away guns. No one is talking about taking guns away outside the NRA.
But this line of thought has been used to justify blocking reasonable gun laws such as universal background checks and the ability to track excessive purchases in short succession.
The other thing is the second amendment that people throw around, but for some reason no one actually reads the first four words: “A well-regulated militia.” I do not and never will under how you can take “well-regulated” and translate that as unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction in the name of preserving freedom.