Again, a vicious psychopath has decided to kill a mass group of people, and again the people who don’t believe in owning guns want to restrict gun ownership for those of us who do. So again, I’m forced to point out the flaws in these arguments.
So why don’t we ban alcohol, since “No one needs to drink alcohol,” (remember, most people argue “no one needs an ‘assault’ rifle”)? Oh wait a minute, we tried that, didn’t we?
During the dreaded Volstead act years, (aka Prohibition), crime went up, not down. While alcohol was banned, it was still quite rampant. Except all the people using it were now deemed criminals. And the people selling it became murderers lest they be locked up.
On December 5th, 1933, then president Roosevelt announced the 21st Amendment had been ratified, a repeal of the 18th Amendment that was prohibition, and the worst violation of the U.S. Constitution’s principle of liberty was finally undone.
Decades later, in June of 1971, Richard Nixon, seemingly fully ignorant of the lessons of prohibition, announced the War on Drugs, and much like prohibition, it has also led to more violence while drugs are still readily available to damn near anyone.
So what evidence do we have to believe that banning or restricting guns will lead to a different outcome? It defies logic, since all previous bans have simply created black markets that aren’t nearly as diligent about who they sell to, and increase crime doing so.
I will continue to argue we have a mental illness problem, not a gun problem. In principle alone, I do not believe in restricting the rights of millions of good people (legal gown owners like myself who have never, nor likely will ever kill someone) because of the actions of bad a few.
Instead, I’d concede that all firearm sales be subject to background checks, even private sales at gun shows. Many may find that position offensive, but the fact remains that someone who would fail a background check currently, could go to such an event, and buy from a private attendee (vendors at gun shows still do background checks) who was looking to sell to a vendor.
That person—leaving with a gun, was in violation of the law if they knew they wouldn’t have passed the background check, but the seller and the show itself were fully within the law, and our current background-check system, in that moment, has failed.
But if we look deeper, most of these mass shootings are from violent psychopaths, many of whom had a history of psychiatric care prior to committing their heinous acts.
If only their respective doctors were to convene, as doctors are sometimes known to do, and collaborate on a system to order further evaluation of someone they have diagnosed with a disorder that the doctor determines makes the patient a danger to others, then submit a suggestion of a firearms restrictions to the FBI so that person would fail a background check, maybe some of these mass shooting could be prevented.
But the fact is that bad people are always going to exist so long as we don’t genetically modify humans to a eliminate the qualities that lead one to be a violent psychopath. That of course assumes it’s a genetic defect versus a product of the person’s environment in the first place; a subject for another post.
So the real issue is that when one of these people does go on a killing spree, there can be no mistake that there are only three things that can stop them.
A change of heart. (As far as I know, this has never happened)
Running out of ammo (Happens, but usually after a lot of people are dead)
Or a good person with a gun taking action.
In my opinion, the best way to end gun deaths of innocent people, is to promote gun ownership to good people, so that more good people are armed and prepared to deal with the bad ones when they go off on a rampage. Terrorists and spree killers aren’t going to snuff themselves out, after all.
If the idea of this scares you, then don’t try to intervene when your neighbor who does have the courage of their convictions opts to arm themselves to do that thing that needs done, that you’re afraid to do yourself. The life saved, could be your own.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action