Premium

Editorial Argues That We Don't Actually Have Gun Control

(AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

People who write for a living aren’t required to be knowledgeable on the subjects they write about. That doesn’t stop most of them from writing about stuff like gun control, though. They do it all the time.

In fairness, there are plenty who don’t think I know what I’m talking about most of the time either, so what can you do?

Regardless, though, sometimes someone gets so far out of their lane that it’s almost comedic. Other times, not so much.

I’m not really sure which time this one is.

On Sunday, my sister texted that there was a gunman loose near her Texas neighborhood. That’s too close a connection for me to ignore. Luckily, the man was arrested, but he had already killed three people. Does this have to happen in every neighborhood or to every family before something is done?

The most important function of government is to keep us safe. Yet, we allow bad guys to access guns with impunity. The answer always is, “criminals will get guns no matter what we do.”

Oh, really? Do tell me what part of the Constitution outlines that function of government.

I’ll wait.

While you’re at it, maybe you can tell me precisely why the court was wrong in Castle Rock versus Gonzalez, among other Supreme Court cases that say the government has no duty to protect you.

Moving on…

But, how do we know that’s true? There has been no concerted effort made to keep guns out of their hands. The new laws implemented just make it easier for anyone to get a gun. And, the laws that are in place to protect people aren’t uniformly enforced, including background checks, waiting periods etc.

Most criminals probably don’t legally purchase guns. They steal them from pickup trucks, homes, stores and whereever they are unsecured.

Wait…was I wrong here? Is this editor actually understanding the problem with gun control in this country?

After all, she’s right. Criminals don’t legally purchase firearms.

Maybe I was wrong.

Or, you know, not.

If law-abiding gun owners were responsible, they would keep weapons under lock and key. But, there’s no law that directs them to do so. And, because most of us can’t tell the good guys from the bad, our government, if responsible, would restrict open carry instead of encouraging it.

Except that criminals generally don’t want people to know they’re armed. They want to look innocuous as possible so people won’t avoid them.

They don’t carry openly even in states where they could probably get away with it.

If I go into a bar or a college classroom and see folks packing, as allowed under Montana law, I’m leaving. But, what of the people who work in those environments? Do they really feel safer knowing the guy drinking at a table in their establishment is carrying? How about the professor who may have angered a student with a grade they felt unfair? Even if he doesn’t own a gun, his roommate may leave his unsecured in their dorm.

First, does their right to feel safe trump the gun owner’s right to feel safe? Either way, you’re talking about making someone feel unsafe. However, only one of those cases requires infringing on someone’s constitutionally protected rights in order to make someone else feel safe and sound.

Second, let’s use the example of the angry student. This is a popular one with the anti-campus carry crowd. The problem is, it’s never happened. Not once.

They keep using these scenarios as “evidence” a particular policy is problematic, but they can’t provide a single example of it actually having happened. Funny, that.

Now, let me warn you before you read this next part. Yes, I’m fisking the whole damn thing here, and this last part will likely infuriate you. It sure as hell did me.

The good guy with the gun is only a good guy with a gun until he isn’t. Many mass shootings have been carried out by men without criminal records. But, because they may have exhibited violent tendencies or had previous mental health issues, they should have been denied the privilege to own a gun (with the right to appeal) under red flag laws.

“The good guy with the gun is only a good guy with a gun until he isn’t.”

Alright, now it’s on.

A good guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Period. End of discussion.

Bad guys without criminal records are not now, nor have they ever been good guys. Get that through your thick, liberal arts educated skull.

Second, yes, I’ll acknowledge that it’s difficult to determine which is which until that bad guy actually does something bad. Yet that’s true of absolutely every aspect of our life. There is no certainty.

Yet understand this, if you disarm the good guys, that doesn’t mean you disarm the bad guys, whether they’ve broken the law before or not. All you’ll manage to do is disarm the victim pool for the bad guys. That’s all gun control ever does.

But it doesn’t suddenly turn the bad guys into good guys, just like having access to firearms doesn’t turn the good guys into bad guys. Arguing otherwise isn’t just idiotic, it’s absolutely insulting.

Americans kill themselves and others everyday with guns. Over 40,000 lives were ended with guns in 2020 in the United States. Compare that to most developed countries and we win. The prize: more death, more sadness.

And at least two-thirds of those are suicides, most of which would still take place even if firearms never existed. I notice that part got left out of her diatribe.

What will it take for our leaders to take the threat seriously?

We do.

The main threats in this country are from people who wish to not just take away our rights, but vilify those of us who refuse to bend over and take it like a champ. We’re supposed to roll over and just be fine with our rights being eroded by people like this, but at the end of the day, what’s their alternative? Disarming us doesn’t disarm the bad guys. It just makes us victims in the face of the more mundane, everyday threat of criminals who think they’re entitled to not just my belongings, but my life.

No thank you.

 

Jul 27, 2021 12:30 PM ET