Constitutional carry is not 'politics over safety'

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Gun control advocates largely argue that they hold that position as a matter of public safety. They believe that restricting firearms in various ways will somehow translate to making our communities safer.

Yes, there are some who likely see it as a means of controlling the population, but the rank and file advocates don’t necessarily hold that view.

We on this side of the debate disagree. We don’t believe it makes anyone safer. In fact, we have a pile of evidence that tells us that gun control does the opposite.

Yet despite all the writing and discussion Second Amendment advocates do on this topic, we still get headlines like, “‘Politics over safety’: the pro-gun laws giving Americans easier access to firearms.”

America’s relationship with guns will probably never be peaceful, but as a rash of new pro-gun laws spread across the country some fear it could soon be legal in as many as 25 US states to carry a concealed gun without a permit.

To gun control advocates and law enforcement it’s a dangerous new development in America’s enduring, historic and highly politicized infatuation with personal firearms.

To gun ownership supporters, it’s a rational response to threats to the second amendment that force law-abiding citizens to undergo police fingerprinting and background checks.

OK, I’ve got to interrupt here for a moment because that last paragraph is complete and utter BS. It’s a response to regulations that require us to ask permission before exercising a right explicitly spelled out in the Constitution; the right to keep and bear arms.

Moving on…

“There’s a reason law enforcement officers overwhelmingly oppose permitless carry: it makes their jobs harder and puts their lives – and the lives of the people they’re sworn to protect – on the line,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action.

“When states dismantle permitting systems and gut gun safety laws, gun violence goes up. Gun lobby-backed politicians are shamefully putting primary politics over public safety, and the consequences will be even more devastation for their constituents and the law enforcement officers they pretend they support.”

See, this is the argument that absolutely infuriates me.

Shannon is stupid enough to actually believe this, of course, but I’m sick of the media uncritically accepting her drivel and printing it as absolute fact.

What she wants people to accept without any question is this idea that everyone knows deep down that gun control really is a matter of public safety, but groups like the NRA just won’t let them vote their conscience. She won’t provide evidence for it, apparently, but the media never questions it.

Look, I’m going to make it very, very clear. Gun control does not lead to public safety. Gun control laws, if they worked, would show a correlation with a reduction in crime to go along with the passage of regulations. That isn’t the case. In fact, some of the highest homicide rates in US history came about after the passing of the Gun Control Act of 1968, as an example.

Our politics are about safety, for crying out loud, and I’m sick and damn tired of people like Shannon “I’m scared of scary-looking guns” Watts being allowed to dictate the conversation by claiming that they aren’t.

Granted, this is The Guardian, who I shouldn’t expect better out of, but this is just how the media keeps playing the game. They pull that quote and yet never seem to give any real rebuttal.

I’m sick of it because it’s blatantly wrong.

Guns save lives. Tens of thousands more people, at a minimum, protect themselves with a gun than use it to hurt innocent people and constitutional carry helps facilitate people having those guns at hand when they need them. That, Shannon, is real safety, not politics.