With the recent tragedy in Connecticut, it seems time to revisit the issue of gun control once again. However, while the leftist mainstream media has assumed some sort of moral high-ground, claiming, “It’s time something’s done about guns,” none have begun to address the realistic application of gun control laws. The fact is that nothing realistic can be done to curb access to guns.
To liberals, it’s easier to blame guns than to address the societal malaise that produces psychos.
According to the anti-gun zealots of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, Connecticut is already the 5th toughest state in terms of gun control. They are in the 90th-percentile of strict gun control states and yet, this tragedy happened. What can this tell us? To me, it shouts what gun rights activists have known for years- gun control laws don’t work.
“[I]n Connecticut you have to have a permit to purchase a handgun, a permit to own, and you have to register your ‘assault weapons’ with the state. Additionally, ‘no person shall possess an assault weapon unless that person possessed that firearm before October 1, 1993, and received a certificate of possession from the Connecticut State Police prior to July 1994.’”
A ban that took effect almost twenty years ago still was not enough to prevent this shooting. No registration laws prevented it either. While we’re at it, we should make mass-murder of children with a firearm super-duper illegal. It will have about the same deterrent effect as increased gun control laws.
“Even legally owned assault weapons can only be possessed in one’s home ‘or other property owned by that person,’ or while ‘on the premises of a target range’ or similar facility. The weapon can be possessed while on the ‘premises of a shooting club,’ or while attending ‘an exhibition, display or educational project about firearms.’ Or while transporting the firearm to any of these places or to a licensed dealer. Yet even in lawful transport, the weapon must be locked in a trunk or container in such a way as to be ‘inaccessible’ to the driver or passengers of the vehicle.
These are stringent laws, yet neither criminals nor evil people worry about adhering to the law when they embark on the commission of crime. Thus 20-year-old Adam Lanza used guns that weren’t in his name (they were in his mother’s) to commit heinous crimes. He took them, when they weren’t his to take; he used them, where they weren’t supposed to be used and in ways they weren’t supposed to be used; and he took innocent lives in the process. It’s hard to ascertain just how many laws he broke to commit his crime.
Yet as Bob Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sporstmen put it, ‘The laws here are pretty strict, and they’re working. But I don’t know any law that would prevent someone from committing…these offenses which are clearly psychologically based.’”
Until such a time that America can invent a way to prevent malice, we must regard gun control laws as schemes that only disarm the stable in order to advance the cause of the unstable. We cannot dis-invent them. They’re out there, and yes, sometimes in dangerous hands. But how can less blood be shed by taking away my means of defense and leaving the lawbreakers armed?
Gun control arguments are not rooted in logic or as a means to effect good policy. They are arguments that pander to the rabble to provide an illusion of enhanced safety while simultaneously doing the exact opposite.