“There is no reason that sensible guns laws cannot coexist with the Second Amendment,” Carole Stiller writes at nj.com. “Who in his right mind can give a logical reason for members of the general public to own AK-47s, AR-15s, 50-caliber rifles?” And there you have it: gun control advocates’ three-point rationale for their anti-gun agenda: 1. Gun control laws don’t violate Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. 2. People who don’t agree with our list of limitations on gun rights are dangerous gun nuts. 3. We’re not listening to gun nuts. This is not what I’d call a sound basis for a “conversation” about guns. But what can you talk about when gun control advocates can’t see the obvious . . .
The NRA’s Veep may look and sound like an undertaker at a public speaking class, but Wayne LaPierre’s “good guy with a gun vs. a bad guy with a gun” reminder was spot on. Over a million defensive gun uses a year says that individual gun owners are still a force—if not the force—against criminal violence. And that’s without considering the importance of deterrence.
The funny (peculiar) thing about deterrence: it’s damn near invisible. How can you calculate the number of “hot” burglaries that don’t happen because potential home invaders worry that a family may be armed against attack? By the same token, how can you measure the loss of liberty we haven’t experienced because we’re armed against our own government?
Gun control advocates like the group responsible for the protests at this week’s NRA press conference can’t begin to fathom the idea that privately-held firearms are a benefit to society.
CODEPINK’s supporters need only look south of the border for “what happens next”: a literal enactment of the NRA’s slogan “If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.” Drug thugs are murdering Mexican defenseless citizens in their tens of thousands. They’re being intimidated, tortured, raped and slaughtered. Judges, journalists, law enforcement officers—anyone representing the rule of law are terminated with extreme prejudice.
The government—the force that gun control advocates seek to empower—is a co-conspirator in this literal death of democracy. The Mexican police and federales are no more accountable for intimidation, torture, rape and murder of law-abiding citizens than the drug cartels. Gun control isn’t just ineffective, it’s the first step on the road to chaos. And much, much worse.
So, to answer CODEPINK’s question . . .
Yes, saying we need more guns to stop violence is like saying we need more bombs to prevent war. Our freedom from war and personal violence depends on the concept of mutually assured destruction. Deterrence. No A-bomb, no world peace. No armed civilians, no check on criminal ambition.
Of course, we’re not always free from war or personal violence, no matter how well we arm ourselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. In the case of war, we must rely on our armed forces. In terms of criminal attack (e.g., spree killing), we could disarm the population and rely entirely on government agents to protect us from lethal threats. But that doesn’t mean we should.
Two facts worth considering:
1. The Columbine killers perpetuated their heinous crime during the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban.
2. First responders first responded to the Sandy Hook Elementary School twenty-minutes after the initial 911 call.
In short, be careful what you wish for.