The public knows very, very little official information surrounding the Sandy Hill school shootings in Connecticut. Outside of the names and ages of the deceased, most of what we hear is just speculation and accordingly the story seems to change by the hour. However, there are some things we can comment on such as the reactions of people.
We know that those who call for gun control measures aren’t even serious about a solution. These are ‘feel good’ solutions for those who believe we must do something, that even an ineffective measure is better than doing nothing. That’s not true. An ineffective measure that infringes upon my right to protect myself and my family is worse than doing nothing.
There are various efforts underway to ban assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and enact ever stricter gun control laws across the country. These are steps designed to minimize the casualty count, not anything to address the core issue and prevent an attack from ever occurring.
The fact is this. If you are serious about preventing the use of firearms in a crime, you must not only ban the sale of any and all firearms, you must also confiscate all privately owned firearms across the country as well as securing our borders to insure none can be transported in. Are you in the anti-gun crowd also willing to secure the borders? Any measure short of this is merely symbolic. Background checks, registering ammo, trigger locks, gun safes, gun free zones, or limits on types or amounts of guns or ammo are all window dressing. Regulating the manner in which legal gun owners obtain or use their weapons is nothing more than punitive. Criminals pay no regard to the laws that affect lawful gun owners.
Unless the country is willing to undertake a civil war in which you can find enough members of law enforcement willing to go door-to-door and shoot their fellow Americans who will refuse to give up their guns willingly, gun control is futile. I suspect that most in the hard-core anti-gun crowd would not also be willing to undertake border security. After all, if you can’t ensure that ANY weapons ever enter the country and end up in the hands of criminals, what is the point?
The contention from the anti-gun crowd is that limiting accessibility will prevent otherwise lawful people from the temptation to use them in a panic or out of character situation. That is the Bob Costas argument in the case of the NFL player who recently killed his girlfriend and then himself. Would he have used some other potential weapon like a baseball bat to accomplish the same result? We’ll never know. Would he have then killed himself if he didn’t have a gun? If one’s mindset is to take your own life, driving your car into a brick wall would suffice, wouldn’t it? Detractors will say if he didn’t have easy access to a weapon in that moment of panic, he likely would have chosen a different course even just moments later. Maybe, maybe not.
Which gets to the core issue. Gun violence is a result of a mindset. There are many factors that go into that mindset. Society, culture, parental upbringing, values, morals, ethics, surroundings, etc. establish the mindset. A propensity for violence must exist even if that person hasn’t outwardly acted upon it. That’s why we can see people who don’t fit the profile suddenly snap much to the shock of their closet family and friends who will tell you they have never exhibited that type of behavior before.
Banning guns certainly isn’t about safety and saving the lives of innocent children. If true, we would have no cars for fear of drunks getting behind the wheel. Why not prohibition instead? Why allow cigarette production? In fact, wouldn’t banning schools solve the problem? Home schooling for all. Problem solved! If it’s really the children we’re trying to protect, why not ban skateboards and trampolines and any other device you can think of not necessary to life that could potentially cause harm?
Why do we allow people to rebuild their homes in flood prone areas? In tornado alley? Why isn’t little league football banned yet because of the concussion problems? How far should we go in protecting ourselves from ourselves? Sound ridiculous? Should we ban the name Sandy since it’s common with the school shootings and the hurricane this year? Now that’s ridiculous. But so are advertised gun-free zones which only serve to comfort the criminal by providing the satisfaction that they will not face any resistance in conducting their criminal act in places like schools and malls and movie theaters and other places of large gatherings of defenseless people.
Is there a one size fits all solution for preventing violence? Of course not, we’re imperfect humans. By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, we’ll never successfully minimize violence to everyone’s satisfaction. Wouldn’t it seem logical that the place to start is the family unit? Where children have their morals and values instilled upon them by their parents? Which leads to the larger issue of the breakdown in society of family values. And the sanctity of marriage. And not relying upon the public school system to raise our children. Yes, the types of arguments that drive you progressives out there nuts. It’s taken a village to get us to this point. It will take just two people at a time to undo it. The parents.