We must DO something! was the cry following the senseless slaughter of innocent people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon on October 1, 2015 and immediately following the rampage of a muslim couple in San Bernardino on December 2, 2015, and again following the murder of homosexuals at a nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016. And I agree. Now WHAT that “something” is, well to say the least, there’s a huge difference between the outlook of this author and that of the current occupant of the White House. Shortly after these horrible events, the current occupant of the Oval Office went on TV to once more call for “More Gun Control!”. As many have observed, every time there is a senseless shooting, they seek to take away the property and freedom of those who DID NOT DO IT.
Let’s consider for a moment some of the existing laws and their “efficacy” in preventing these tragedies. It is illegal to kill a person, is it not? In fact, this is a supreme law, recognized by every civilization around the world. The application towards diverse persons may differ (as a society we have allowed the brutal murder of the unborn, for example) but over all it is recognized that murder is prohibited. Anyone willing to break that supreme law will not be deterred by lesser laws or regulations such as the “Gun Free Zone” policy declared by the different places where these abominable actions took place.
Some people seem to be under the impression that all that is required to end some perceived behavior or substance or object is “pass a law!” Well, we passed the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and wiped out the production and consumption of alcoholic beverages, did we not? For those who are hazy on historical issues; no, we did not. We DID pass the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but in no way did we put an end to the production, importation or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Instead we got “The Roaring Twenties”, an era in which bootlegging (the illegal production and distribution of alcohol) allowed criminal organizations to amass large fortunes and control many law enforcement officers and politicians. The same has happened with “The War On Drugs”. Instead of preventing the production and consumption of these substances we’ve made them more lucrative for those who routinely ignore such laws.
What many people do not understand is the relative facility with which firearms can be manufactured. This is NOT “rocket science”. Firearms of diverse types have been around for centuries and have been made with hand tools for most of that time. In Elmer Keith’s “Hell, I was there!” he relates how his grandfather’s personal firearms were confiscated by the Union Army. His grandfather then went back into the woods, built a forge and then produced a musket and a pistol for his own use to provide protection and sustenance for his family. This was in the middle of the 19th century in backwoods Missouri. Today there are great numbers of machine tools that allow a moderately instructed person to produce much more modern types of firearms in the comfort of their own shop. Making firearms illegal will not prevent people intent on obtaining them from obtaining them. Doing so would be a mere bump in the road.
This excellent article regarding the lack of violent Jewish resistance to the holocaust also details how the few Jewish resistance fighters who DID fight back managed to obtain firearms even though the state had prohibited them from possessing firearms. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. History bears out the fact that prohibiting firearms does not remove them from availability. History also shows that entrusting the state with the sole possession of arms is a BAD MOVE. As has been so often demonstrated, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So, how can the matter of violence committed by criminals be addressed effectively? Relying on the police to solve the matter is not exactly an effective policy. As this article details, calling 911 is far from “fool proof”. When armed criminals are committing violent crimes, seconds can seem like hours to the victims. The best defense against armed criminals is armed self defense. The best of the best defense is well trained armed self defense.
“Gun Free Zones” are demonstrably inadequate at preventing criminal ingress to the “protected” zone. The only way that a “Gun Free Zone” might provide some level of real protection is if that zone is backed up by armed security guards using full body metal detectors. Anything less is asking the criminally inclined to please play nice because we want to play nice. In fact, it is time for the burden of personal security be placed upon the backs of those who post “No Guns Allowed” type signs. They should be held financially and legally responsible for the security and well being of any person that enters their establishment. Some folks simply don’t “get it”. Your desire to live a trouble free, non-violent life is no guarantee that such will happen. Posting a sign or “having a policy” does not keep violent criminals out of your territory! Violent criminals DO NOT CARE ABOUT LAWS OR SIGNS!!!
When people stop relying on the government to protect them in all circumstances and start providing for themselves, the criminals have to find other activities than terrorizing the populace. The number of firearms in the U.S. has increased dramatically over the past twenty years, but violent crime has actually decreased. We are seeing a lot of “copycat” crimes such as the one at Umpqua due to the sensationalist “journalism” of today’s media. Rather than name the criminals who commit the crime it is time for us to start naming and praising those who stand up to them. People such as Chris Mintz, Joel Myrick, Jeanne Assam,
So, Mr. President, it IS time for us to “Do Something”. It’s time to stop pretending that another law will make a difference. It’s time to stop presenting the losers of this world with places where they can harm others with little risk to themselves. It’s time to stop taking freedom from the law abiding and to start holding criminals accountable for their actions.
And to the rest of us, it’s time to follow the example of many who ignore the asinine laws and signs and are prepared to stand in the gap should they find themselves in the same situation that Chris Mintz did. If he’d been armed instead of being bare handed, the probability of the killer continuing on his spree would have been greatly reduced. Already there are many thinking people who refuse to be disarmed because of the illogical phobias of those in power against inanimate objects. Many of us routinely walk by “Gun Free Zone” type signs – carrying the means to defend ourselves and others around us. As has been observed, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. And there’s a reason it’s called “concealed carry”. Properly done, no one is the wiser and the only way anyone will know you walked past that sign is if you are called upon to protect the innocent from the lawless.