Another shooting at a college campus occurred this past week and the same rhetoric we hear every time there is a senseless shooting came spewing out: guns are bad and we need gun safety laws. Not ways to tighten up background checks, or scan medical records for psychiatric disorders—but gun safety laws.
What exactly is a “gun safety” law? Gun safety is all about how to safely handle a firearm—how to properly load, unload, secure, and fire it. Once again our Harvard-educated president has difficulty articulating what it is that he actually wants or is against. One thing is certain, he doesn’t want more gun safety laws (of which there are none I am aware of), but rather, he wants gun control laws.
The U.S. ranks third in the world in gun related murders, but, if we leave out the murders committed in Detroit, Chicago, Washington, DC, and New Orleans, we are fourth from the bottom! In the president’s mind stringent gun control leads to less violent crime—but these four cities have the most rigorous gun laws in the nation. That really exposes his flawed logic!
No doubt what the president and others of his ilk want is to take firearms out of the hands of lawful citizens—they of course won’t admit such, but that is nevertheless their ultimate goal. This is masked by wanting more restrictions, making it much more difficult to purchase a firearm. We already have a waiting period, unless one has a concealed carry permit, and a background check is required—what more do we need?
Perhaps some people missed the incongruity of the shootings—they occurred in a “gun free zone.” The college campus was so gun free that even the security officers at the school were not allowed to carry a firearm. I don’t know what their instructions were—perhaps just to shout “This is a gun free zone, you can’t kill people here!” A gun free zone may seem like a utopian place to the liberal mind, but either the gunman couldn’t read or perhaps finding a place gun free only meant in his mind he could kill others with no possible chance of opposing gunfire.
The shooter had seven pistols, five rifles, and one shotgun. My initial reaction would be: Where does a student get the money to purchase this vast array of firearms? Also, the shooter was discharged from the Army in 2008 without ever completing basic training—that in and of itself should give any rational individual pause for thought. Yet the shooter managed to purchase, or have a family member legally buy the firearms. A handgun is much harder to purchase than a rifle. A handgun requires a waiting period and a complete federal firearms investigation—whatever that means. A rifle can typically be purchased and taken out of the store after completing a federal firearms form and paying the $5.00 background check fee.
It is very easy to stand at a podium and tell America that something has to be done —but much harder to advocate exactly what that “something” exactly constitutes, without infringing on our constitutional right to own and carry (bear) a firearm. And typically those who are front and center advocating all sorts of gun control have the means to hire and have armed security staff at their disposal. Our president for example, cannot go to the bathroom to relieve himself without an armed bodyguard outside the door to make sure he is safe. Most American citizens don’t have that level of security.
Armed security at this college may not have prevented this atrocity but would surely have expedited the armed response and saved lives. Until the utopia that some folks envision materializes, we may want to admit that a law-abiding individual with a gun can save lives. A lawless individual with a firearm who is determined to inflict mayhem doesn’t give a hoot about gun laws—and, as long as the bullet comes out of the barrel end, probably doesn’t give a hoot about gun safety either.
Have a good week.
Bill Shuey is a freelance writer from North Carolina.
I’m all for “gun control” -- hit what you’re aiming at or trade your gun for a baseball bat.
As for weeding out those that pose a threat -- start refusing gun sales to liberals and democrats FIRST. (too bad there isn’t a clinical test to show “stupid” as a “degenerative disease)
Second: Add this question to the BATF application: Have you been prescribed or taken ANY of the following medications in the past 12 months: A check-list of ALL psychotropic medications found in the current PDR (Physician’s Deck Reference). A check of ANY of them should be an automatic denial.
Third: Make it a mandate that a urinalysis be taken within 48 hours to show LAB-TESTED and certifiable proof thereof -- just like what happens during a routine job application.