After this most recent mass shooting, the call for gun control is going to become very loud. Even my wife told me yesterday that she favored making ownership of ALL firearms illegal. I understand the concept behind the limiting access of firearms.
IF (A very big if) nobody could obtain firearms and/or ammunition, you would think that mass shootings like this would never happen. I not only disagree, but I believe that taking firearms away from law abiding citizens will only make the situation worse, not better.
Mass murder can be achieved in many ways besides going on a shooting rampage. Just look at Oklahoma City. And he got away from the scene without killing himself.
What about “Saturday night specials”? I am certain that we have plenty of people in this country would can forge their own firearms with materials commonly available. The firearms would simply move underground, in a way similar to the way prohibition moved drinking alcohol underground. What you end up doing is taking away the ability of people like me from ever having the training and practice needed to defend myself and or my family.
My wife does not see what I see in this regard. You need to look to see how many would be assaults with firearms are defeated every week. Conceal and carry works far better. Just look at the statistics in the states that are enacting this measure. Violent crime is down, although many critics say that crime is down across the country anyway. But the key is foiled attempts at the use of firearms. We see two or three a week, but they are not on the nightly news because generally only one or two people are killed and sometimes no one. Not big enough to make the papers, yet effective. How many shootings like we saw last week in the school? They tend to come in groups, yet average out to less than one a year. We have dozens of foiled attempts every year in concealed and carry states. This is because we have honest, law abiding citizens who are present at the scene who are willing to risk their life in order to at the very least, to force the shooter to direct their attention to them. Even if they fail, they at least direct the attention of the shooter away from the targets that they would select. This buys time for the others to run away. Many times they are successful and stop the violence immediately.
Have you noticed how these successful shooters are ALWAYS in a situation where no one else has firearms to shoot back? In the situations where someone else does have the ability to shoot back, they do and generally it is successful. Yet we do not hear about them because the death toll is so low, if anyone did die. Then we have the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution enabled our people to defend themselves with the right to bear and CARRY arms. And the reference is to firearms. This was set up this way to enable us with the ability to defend ourselves from not just tyranny, but from ANY threat where we are outnumbered or outsized. I do not know about the other states that have allowed conceal and carry, but I do know that in Wisconsin, 80% of the new applications for concealed permits have been submitted by women. I expect similar results in the other states that have allowed this practice. A woman attacked by a man can really stand her ground if she did not have to use her fists to protect herself. A firearm goes a long way to even the odds and examples of justified shootings in conceal and carry states are plentiful.
The idea of taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is at best misguided. Other factors could be at play here and they are far worse, which is why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place.