Legal efforts to limit guns will, as supporters of a less restrictive gun policy are eager to point out, only limit gun ownership among those who care about abiding by the laws. A homicidal psychopath bent on committing a killing spree will hardly be deterred by the possibility that he might commit a felony by bringing a gun into a gun-free zone. The only ones who will be deterred are those who might have carried a gun for self defense but instead leave it at home, leaving themselves defenseless against a maniac like the one in Colorado yesterday. This argument is supported by the fact that of the twenty-six most deadly mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1966, seventeen--more than half--have occurred in gun-free zones. The shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and, most recently, Aurora, Colorado, just to name a few, occurred in areas where the victims did not have the ability to defend themselves. Further, a list of the twenty-eight most deadly shootings worldwide again reveals that more than half, in this case nineteen, occurred where the populace as a whole does not have the freedom to carry guns. In fact, on a larger scale, when Britain instituted a law severely restricting gun ownership in 1968, the homicide rate began to average 52% higher. A second law banning handguns entirely increased the homicide rate by 15%. Here in the U.S. homicide rates as a whole are much higher and one can only imagine the effect an increase by half again would have.
Unfortunately, the current misguided policy of attempting to reduce gun violence through restricting gun ownership is not likely to change. The presidential candidates from both major political parties espouse, or at least have in the past, policies limiting citizens' ability to carry concealed weapons. Mitt Romney, during his time as governor of Massachusetts, said that "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety." He also claimed that semiautomatic firearms should be banned as they "are not made for recreation or self-defense, they are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." He made this statement in support of a bill, which he signed, banning "assault weapons." He has since backtracked, but that change of heart came, along with his change of heart on abortion, healthcare, marriage, and the role of government, shortly before he began pursuing the Republican presidential nomination. Obama opposes gun ownership stridently, supporting the Illinois handgun ban and attacking George W. Bush for failing to renew the "assault weapons" ban.
On the other hand, Tom Hoefling supports the right to "keep and bear arms." Rather than engaging in well-intentioned but misguided attempts to take guns out of the hands of everyone, law abiding or not, he recognizes that the way to avoid further tragedy is to allow the would-be victims to defend themselves, believing that, according to the platform of America's Party "The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies, which is why we fiercely defend the indispensable provisions of our Second Amendment. Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so."
Tragedies of the sort that occurred in that crowded theater in Colorado ought to serve as a wake up call. As a nation we cannot allow ourselves to be stripped of our ability to defend ourselves, however well-meaning the attempt to do so might be. Let's remember the victims and their families in our thoughts and prayers, but at the same time let's do our best to see to it that it never happens again.
For a new birth of freedom!
Bravo, very well put.
ReplyDelete