After every mass shooting in American there are calls by gun control advocates to implement stricter gun control laws and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms under the rationale that it is necessary to prevent similar murders in the future.
Putting aside the Second Amendment for a moment (as if they cared what it said, anyway) it is shameless in how they exploit appalling crimes for political purposes.
Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty realizes how impractical their solutions are, such as limiting the capacity of gun magazines or the features on rifles. Such impracticality reveals that they are wholly uninterested in solving the problem.
The basis of their argument for gun control is that guns are to blame for people murdering one another. This statement inanely infers that means precede motive. To paraphrase retired Marine and former reporter Fred Reed, people didn’t start hunting when they learned how to make spears. They learned how to make spears to become better hunters.
To argue anything different about people and guns requires that either a person hasn’t read a single history book or they possess a profound ignorance about human nature.
The unpleasant truth is the only things that prevent people from committing murder are desire or morality, self-preservation, and ability. In other words, most people have no desire to murder, or they also believe murder is morally wrong. So the idea never enters their minds. For the small percentage of people who actually entertain the notion, the repercussions it would have on their life are too great.
Society focuses on regulating people through these first two elements because as strange and uncomfortable as it is to think about, it is impossible to control the ability. Opportunities are everywhere. Society still functions in spite of this because, due to previously established moral norms and effective repercussions, the matter is moot.
This means that even if gun control measures worked in keeping guns out of the hands of would-be murderers, these people will inevitably find another way to act on their desire. If they can’t obtain a gun, they will use another method.
Consider that Timothy McVeigh murdered hundreds using fertilizer. Gary Ridgeway and Ted Bundy strangled their victims to death. The 9/11 terrorists murdered 3,000 people using plastic knives and airplanes. They didn’t try to get guns to do the job, fail to obtain them, and then go home and live decent lives as a result. They had the desire to do evil and no concern for their wellbeing after the fact.
No gun control measure could have stopped them.
Which brings us to our next point. The only thing worse than the impracticality of gun control legislation as a remedy for mass killings is the underlying premise that “guns are responsible” or those laws could have prevented the murders from happening. It takes away all moral culpability from the murderer and places it on an inanimate object that can do nothing on its own. Not considered in any way is the moral depravity of the person in question.
Even gun control advocates won’t claim that their proposals would cause the would-be murderer to have a change of heart.
When gun control advocates express outrage over the means of murder, rather than the murder itself, the inference is that had the murderer used another tool to commit the act it would have been less reprehensible. It’s almost inferred that it is perfectly natural a person have a desire to murder their fellow man in such a senseless manner and the only real “crime” is that they used a gun to do it.
If this is not the case, why the use of the Orwellian term “gun violence” as if such violence is worse than other types of violence? Why not simply call it “murder”?
Here we confront the most unpleasant truth about gun control proponents. They are utterly disingenuous about their real objective: To disarm the American public. They believe no one except police and the military should have guns. It is their raison d’être. Mass shootings give them a subterfuge to push toward this objective covertly.
Those who argue otherwise, I would simply ask you to look at their actions, rather than listen to their words. It is why they push for legislation that only concerns private citizens acquiring and possessing firearms and never law enforcement or the military. It is why they express zero alarm at the militarization of police departments, never call for restrictions on the type of firearms they can use, or ever speak of “gun violence” whenever an officer is involved an unjustified shooting. It is why they constantly claim that the less guns citizens own the safer we are. It is why they attempt to denigrate anyone who opposes their agenda or merely possesses firearms. It is why they portray gun owners as a fringe element of society when they in fact represent a bulk of the American population. It is also why they never draw attention to the way in which politicians are protected by the very same firearms they want to keep out of the hands of ordinary people.
It is too much of a stretch to imagine the real reason gun control proponents view law-abiding gun owners with hostility is because when all is said and done, they would like to use the government in ways which deep down they fear could result in massed armed resistance if they attempted to carry out those policies? It is an unspoken, but nevertheless evident truth that as long as the American people have guns, the government and those who would use it for their own ends are restricted in terms of how frank they can be about what they’re doing, what policies they can implement, and how quickly they can do so.
For many of these political policies, disarmament has to come first. It isn’t hard to imagine that this hostility to private gun ownership reflects a growing impatience on the part of many who long for their political vision to be realized.
Mass shootings are the acts of savages. Coercion in the form of legislation, however, cannot civilize such people. The only thing that can be done is ensure people have the means of protecting themselves when someone tries to harm them.
Ironically, this is the opposite of what “gun safety” advocates propose, because the purpose of those proposals has nothing to do with stopping murder.