Why Gun Control Laws Solve Nothing

The Left sure knows how to take advantage of a crisis. They offered up the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy as evidence that we need more gun control laws and now with the anniversary of that tragedy coming up, they’re again hoping that, as always, people allow their emotions to take over. But it only takes a little bit of critical thinking to realize that stricter gun laws wouldn’t solve a thing, and would only serve to take rights away from law-abiding citizens.

We’re supposed to believe that passing more laws would prevent tragedies like this from happening, but aren’t guns already banned in schools? Criminals don’t care about the law. It’s what makes them criminals. You cannot pass a law to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things.

Not only did Adam Lanza not care about the law that prohibits guns inside schools, but the law actually gives people like him an advantage over their victims. A school seems like the perfect place for massacres since law abiding citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with weapons of their own.

Have you ever heard of the Pearl River High School shooting? A 16-year-old gunman killed two students, injured seven others, and was stopped by the assistant principal who was able to retrieve his personal weapon from his car before the kid had a chance to go to another school to do the same thing. Did the law stop this nut from killing more people? No. An armed citizen, exercising his 2nd amendment right, did.

A popular position is that maybe we should ban weapons like assault rifles that can shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. The idea is that a killer would not be able to kill as many people without one of these. The media has been able to get many to adopt this position by asking the question, “why does anyone need an assault rifle?”

But that’s wrong question to ask. We should be asking whether banning assault rifles would prevent bad people from getting them; and the answer to this is No. If bad guys wanna get those weapons, they will get them, just like they are able to get their hands on illegal drugs.

Banning assault rifles would only take the rifles away from those that would never use them to carry out an attack in the first place.

When the media focuses on this question of why anyone would need that kind of weapon, they take the focus away from the actual problem that we are trying to solve. The conversation is no longer about how to prevent lives from being lost. It is now about taking things away from people, simply because we do not agree with their behavior. There are many things that we don’t “need” but that is what a free society is all about; having the freedom to do things that others disapprove of as long as you are not hurting your fellow citizens.

Americans don’t really need cars that can go faster than 75 mph either, and there were over thirty two thousand motor vehicle deaths last year. Would it make sense to put  a ban on fast cars? What about swimming pools? Far more children die in swimming pool accidents than they do from guns. Should we ban pools? Do we really need them?

Some last year were calling for armed guards to be placed in every school, but what happens when the guards are taken out by the shooter(s)? They’ll know exactly who they need to kill first since everyone will know the guards are the only ones with guns. And do we really want our kids to go to school in a prison-like environment? Isn’t it a better idea to allow the schools’ staff to arm themselves? Why does the law prevent teachers and principals from protecting themselves and the children? Assault rifle or not, a killer can do a lot of damage if no one else in the school has the ability to shoot back.

Like most government solutions, banning assault weapons would make people feel good that they did something but would do nothing to prevent crazy people from getting their hands on them.

The next time you think you can make the world a perfect place by restricting what law-abiding citizens can do, think about prisoners. They have almost no freedom, yet they still find ways to create weapons and kill people.

The fact is that if you want to kill and do not care about the consequences, laws cannot stop you. The only way to minimize the damage is to allow people to defend themselves by respecting the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, which was written at a time when the founding fathers had to use all available weapons against a tyrannical government. This is, in fact, the purpose of the 2nd amendment. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” Thomas Jefferson said.

This whole argument is no longer about protecting kids. It is about taking the rights away from those who have done nothing wrong. If we really care about preventing another tragedy, we have to have the courage to have a real conversation about what would work, rather than just talking about what would make us feel better.

Similar Posts:

  • Excellent and very thorough article. I find the public reaction to this tragedy almost as alarming as the heinous acts themselves.

    • Thanks Daniel. It certainly is disturbing how easy it has been for the media to convince the average citizen.

  • Michael

    Your attack on the people you consider to be dumb and easily-duped average citizens truly convinces everyone who already agrees with you, but nobody else. You must stop assuming that anyone who doesn’t share your view is just plain stupid. As a result, you ignore all the complications this situation presents and every piece of evidence against the NRA position to arm and train as many citizens as possible. Have you looked at the rate of mass killings in Europe? Do you understand that Lanza and those like him are not resourceful mob hit men? The assumption that people make when they want to limit the proliferation of assault weapons is that the ridiculous availability of these weapons contributes to the ease with which people with mental disorders can go on a spree. Lanza’s mother did not need an assault weapon for protection. Your solution of arming the principal and staff with equally potent assault weapons assumes no mistakes (gun left available to students), no mood swings or drunken rage by gun owners, and perfect identification of appropriate gun owners when the guns are purchased.

    Nobody has said the world will be a perfect place once an assault-weapon ban is in place. Your hideous attack on the intelligence of anyone who doesn’t agree and your insistence that the whole matter is plain and simple only hardens the position of these people you consider to be morons.

    • I fail to see where I have called those who disagree with me, stupid. Not that I haven’t done that in the past. I just don’t see where I did it here, in this article. The simple truth is that if you want to hurt others and you don’t care about the legal consequences of your action you will find a way to hurt those people. Those in jail find a way, even with no freedom at all. So yeah, you can make it harder for those with mental illness to get weapons. You can also make it harder for people to drive a car, thus reducing the number of car accidents. You can also make it harder for people to have access to steak knives. The point is you are taking those freedoms away from the wrong people while those with mental illness will always find a way. So what would that accomplish?

  • Stephen

    “A popular position is that maybe we should ban weapons like assault rifles that can shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger.” Such weapons are not legal to own without a Class III Firearms license, or Military or law enforcement requirements, and they compose maybe one percent of the average 15% of homicides by non-pistol firearms. The trend from 1992 to 2011 is that 50-60% of all homicides are committed with pistols, while the rifles are clumped together with shotguns and any other firearm that isn’t a pistol. Rifles are really not killing as many people as they want you to think. The facts are right here.. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf

    • Thanks for the info Stephen, and for stopping by. It helps to reinforce the fact that gun control laws really do nothing to accomplish what proponents think it will accomplish. The truth is that proponents of gun control just want to use the law to go after people whose life style they don’t agree with. It turns out they aren’t as tolerant as they love to pretend to be.