Too Many Guns? Not Enough Gun Control?

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens wants more gun control. He thinks there are too many guns in America. He hates guns.  I assume he also hates criminal gun violence. That wouldn’t be remarkable. I don’t know anyone who likes criminal gun violence. We all wish there were less of it. Hell, we wish there were none of it.

Justice Stevens thinks that criminal gun violence is a function of too many guns. He recently said, “There’s no need for all the guns we have in this country.”

Stevens joins so many others who believe violence can be controlled by controlling non-violent people.

To me Stevens remedy is akin to believing the way to control flooding is to get rid of water. Or telling people to stop having kids to get rid of measles and chicken pox. Here’s another one: abolish all government regulations to get rid of the non-sensical ones. Finally, I can’t resist the cliche of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” The reason certain phrases become cliches is because they’re true and/or express common wisdom.

I’m not sure whether Stevens advocates more gun control, or confiscating all guns in the country, or just enough so there won’t be so many. Either way, whatever he means, it’s not possible. Just what is possible?

I believe there are only five theoretical scenarios of firearm possession that can be imagined as possible:

  • Nobody has a gun
  • Everybody who wants a gun can have a gun, or several guns
  • Only Police and the military have guns
  • Only police, the military and criminals have guns
  • Only police, military and law-abiding people have guns

While all the above might be possible in theory, only the two in bold italic type are practically possible. The other three are not actually possible at all. Of the two I say are possible, which do you like better?

Guns and criminals and mentally disturbed people exist everywhere on this earth. While it may be more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to have guns in some countries, it is not and never will be impossible for at least some criminals to have guns. In some third-world countries where police are not well paid some officers make extra money in their off duty hours by renting their guns to criminals. In Mexico the population is largely disarmed. The drug cartel criminals have firepower and other weapons that rival or exceed what the police have.

In the United States, unlike most other countries, citizens have a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that right in Washington DC v. Heller several years ago. Justice Stevens wrote a strong dissent in that case, in which the other three liberal justices concurred. Many Americans, including all of the current 22 or more Democrat contenders for the presidency in 2020, agree completely with Stevens. They are sorely misguided.

 

Gun control laws do not make Americans safer. These laws make Americans less safe because such laws make if more difficult for them to have the best means available for their own personal protection. Meanwhile, the criminals keep their guns. Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Every year somewhere between one million and three million times Americans stop a criminal attack with a firearm.  In over 95% of these incidents the gun is not fired. When the citizen presents his or her firearm the criminal will usually break off the attack and run away. Does Justice Stevens want to reverse the outcomes of these situations? Does Justice Stevens what Americans to be more vulnerable to criminal attack?

Would the type of draconian gun control or gun confiscation envisioned by Democrats make mass shootings at schools and other public places easier for the shooter to gain a bigger tally of victims? Yes! It certainly would. If the entire country becomes a gun-free zone we will see a rise in violent criminal behavior (with guns) like Americans have ever seen before.

There was a time in history when the entire world was a true gun free zone. That was before gun and gun powder were known. Unless you’ve avoided all history you know it was not all peace and love in those days. Those were times when the strong and mighty always got their way over the weak and small. Guns changed all that by makeing it so the weak, old, and tired had a chance to live in relative peace.

Radical liberals are incapable of an honest, rational discussion about gun control

Because the gun debate is one of the most heated, pressing political issues of our time, calm and rational discussions need to happen for us to find common ground on gun rights and gun control. Sadly, too many liberals refuse to partake.

Instead, they continue to be hard-headed and not open for debate. They continue to push for stricter gun control, furthering the divide between gun owners and non-gun owners.

Radical gun control organizations like Moms Demand Action continue to back the notion that disarming schools creates a safer environment. More than 90 percent of public mass shootings, take place in a “gun-free” zone. If Moms Demand Action truly cared about the safety of students, they would prefer well-trained armed teachers, or police officers, to be present at the school.

Another radical gun-grabbing organization is the Brady Campaign. On of its largest projects is “ No Gun Left Behind,” in which the Brady Campaign claims “guns on campus would dramatically increase gun violence risks to college students and trample on academic freedom.” However, there have been no negative effects of legal concealed carry on campus by college students. See, for example, campuses in Texas.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

%d bloggers like this: