Less than 24 hours after the mass murders of nine people in Charleston, SC, President Obama spoke to the need for more restrictive gun laws to prevent these kinds of crimes. To use this highly emotional moment to push for more gun control is despicable and deceitful, since it implies that more gun control laws could have prevented this dreadful situation from happening. Nothing could be further from the truth of the matter.
There is no gun control law that could be enacted that would prevent another massacre we just saw in Charleston, SC, short of confiscating all guns from legal gun owners. And that wouldn't even slow down those people mentally disordered and bent upon a heinous criminal act with a gun. Nor would it be able to confiscate guns from criminals, since they would not willingly give up any guns they may have. There is no honor system among criminals to give up their guns in the face of any gun control law.
Dylann Roof, charged with murder and probably numerous other crimes in the deaths of nine innocent people at the Emanuel AME Church, did not obtain a gun fraudulently from any loophole in South Carolina gun laws or any federal gun laws.
Dylann Roof received the gun he used for his savage and senseless murderous rampage as a gift from his father on his 21st birthday. There is virtually no way to prevent a gifting of a gun to a family member or possibly even a close friend.
Gun control laws have absolutely no effect upon those with intentions to use a gun in a criminal activity. Criminals steal guns and buy guns on the black market. There is nothing that can be done about this means of acquisition, despite what every liberal gun grabber may say to the contrary.
Gun control laws simply make it difficult, if not close to impossible, to legally obtain and possess firearms for any legal reason, not the least of which is self defense.
It's estimated that there are over 300 million firearms in the United States, which has a population of over 300 million people. To think that such grizzly crimes as we have seen in Charleston, can be averted with more gun control laws is simply ludicrous. The cities and states with the highest gun related deaths all have one common denominator. They all have the most stringent gun control laws in the United States and they are all enclaves of liberal politicians that have failed miserably to address the root causes of illegal gun usage within their jurisdictions.
When liberal politicians can figure out how to prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally and without impinging upon the 2nd Amendment rights of all legal gun owners, I might be inclined to listen to their proposals. Until then, liberals have absolutely nothing worthwhile in the least to contribute to ending or even limiting, let alone reducing the illegal use of guns that results in headline news of gun deaths due to mentally disordered individuals.
Rational people know that liberals really seek to control people, not guns. Every totalitarian regime in history has made gun control and confiscation at the top of their "to do" list upon their acquisition of power at the barrel of a gun. Had there been one legally armed individual in the Emanuel AME Church, Dylann Roof may not have gotten away with any of the murders he appears to have committed. However, Dylann Rood reasonably surmised that no one would probably be armed in the church, which meant he could exercise his evil intent with relative ease and little possibility of his being stopped or even injured in his sick rampage.
Further restricting legal gun possession is an open invitation to criminals to use a gun in the commission of a crime without fear of any immediate consequences to their personal safety. States that have reasonably obtainable concealed carry permits have lower criminal usage of guns than those states with very restrictive concealed carry permits.
An armed society is a much more polite society. When criminals don't know who is carrying a gun, they are less inclined to use a gun in the commission of a crime for one simple reason. They become more concerned with their own immediate personal safety than using a gun in a situation that may find them confronted with a victim armed and willing to use that firearm to prevent the criminal from their intended crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment