We're told that we should accept some limits on our rights in order to protect society as a whole. While this is a terrible argument on the whole, it might be a tad more convincing if gun control actually protected society as a whole. It doesn't.
In fact, many times, we see horrific events take place specifically in places with heightened gun control.
A Michigan high school graduation ceremony was almost such a place, because despite other gun laws already in place, someone had the desire and the means to carry out many people's nightmare scenario.
A Pontiac man has admitted to a foiled plan to open fire at a high school graduation in Oakland County, pleading guilty Tuesday to a slate of weapons charges tied to last June’s scare at the United Wholesale Mortgage Sports Complex.
Prosecutors say Jamarion Hardiman and a co-defendant showed up to the Arts and Technology Academy of Pontiac commencement with loaded guns in tow. The weapons were ultimately seized by deputies in the parking lot after a fight broke out, short-circuiting what officials feared could have turned into something far worse. With the plea, Hardiman is now set for sentencing on April 14, while his co-defendant is scheduled to be back in court March 3.
Hardiman, who initially pleaded not guilty, has now admitted to carrying a firearm with unlawful intent, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and carrying a concealed weapon, according to ClickOnDetroit. The outlet reports he changed his plea on Tuesday and is expected to learn his punishment in mid-April.
Hardiman was just 20 when he was arrested in June of last year, too young to have lawfully purchased the AR pistol he carried that day.
Why is it that Michigan, which has enacted some pretty strict gun control laws lately, and which I would imagine doesn't allow guns to be carried at graduation ceremonies, couldn't have headed this off before Hardiman got his hands on a gun?
Could it be that Hardiman was no pillar of the community even before this incident--I mean, he got bumped by a car, and his response was to potentially start killing everyone in sight, so...--and thus didn't care about gun control laws, much less any other rules or regulations?
The problem highlighted here is that criminals don't obey the law. I mean, it's kind of the key part of the job description, don't you think?
So why, in the love of all that is holy, do these people keep convincing folks that new laws will somehow stop bad people from breaking the laws we already have?
It makes no sense.
What nearly happened here in Michigan could have been a bloodbath. We don't know if Hardiman would have just settled and "settled the score" or if he would have gone on a spree, killing everyone he could. The fact that it was so close is troubling to an extreme, and the laws in Michigan did nothing to prevent it.
But those same laws meant that any law-abiding person inside who might have had a gun didn't. They were powerless if Hardiman had decided to kill people in job lots. He or she would have been left wishing they, too, had broken the law, because at least they could protect their family then and there.
Once again, gun control failed to keep this kid disarmed, the central premise of it, and this may well be used to justify still more of the exact same kind of thing that failed.
The absolute "brilliance" of the anti-gunner.
This is why so many of us gun people are into things like bourbon and other whiskeys, to say nothing of cigars and other "vices."
Just sayin'.
