Thursday, March 1, 2018 — Sometimes the easiest way to figure out something is to stand on its head. That’s right. Do the old flip-flop. Look at it from the opposite direction. Transposal may be a way to term it.
That’s what it takes to begin to fathom the gun debate of late. That debate is riddled with opposites that layer riddles atop conundrums. For instance, most mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones.” How can there be shootings where there are no guns?
The common denominators in mass shootings are “masses” of people who are mowed down by shots. That scenario requires that a lot of defenseless people be at the mercy of someone bad. “Someone bad” is the problem. The gun is the tool and there is no logical reason for people to be defenseless.
Interestingly, removing any one of those elements precludes a mass shooting, but it does not necessarily assure safety. For example, if the gun is removed from the equation and replaced with a bomb, the result is a mass killing rather than a mass shooting. Same result, different tool, different name.
Remove a congregation of people from the equation, and any shooting, by definition, could not be a mass shooting.
Remove “someone bad” from the equation and it doesn’t matter if there is a mass of people, a gun, or a combination of both. Masses of people are on hand at big shooting events all over the place all the time and there are no mass shootings in those places, in the current social parlance.
In fact, the two safest kinds of places to be if one wants to avoid being a victim of a mass shooting are police stations and shooting ranges. The common denominator at both of those kinds of places is “good guys with guns.” Hence, statistically, guns create the safest havens from gun violence – which means that the gremlin in all of this is not the gun, but who is using it. We all knew that, of course.
The “simplisticates” suggest that if the problem can be solved by eliminating any one of the basic ingredients, then why not eliminate guns from the equation? Because it physically could not happen. There simply is no way to collect and remove 357 million guns from the U.S. society. Nor should there be, since we already have established that the gun is not the problem.
The debate of late is full of “could haves, should haves, would haves,” but no concrete answers. Okay. That’s fair enough because one thing that is crystal clear in mass shootings is that “gun free zones” don’t work and that the government cannot/will not protect citizens from crazed psychos.
To those who call for more gun control, I answer simply: If more than 20,000 gun laws haven’t worked, how do you think that any more will make a difference? Laws only work with law-abiding citizens, and evil beasts like the mass shooters are not law-abiding, so no law would stop them.
The real problem that the gun grabbers have is that their mantra has worn both old and thin because it doesn’t work. Yet every single day in America there are many examples of how good guys with guns have stopped and/or defeated bad guys with guns.
So, let’s take a look at facts. We know that gun laws don’t stop crime. We know that guns do stop crime (whether in the hands of law enforcement personnel or regular citizens). Or, really turn this recent shooting on its head: There were only two people during that shooting who were not threatened by gunman. They were the gunman himself and the sheriff’s deputy who never got into the fight. What is the common denominator with regard to the only two who were not threatened by the gunman? They both had guns. It is just that the good guy never encountered the bad guy, or again, a gun would have ended a mass shooting at the speed of a bullet.
There has been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking regarding law enforcement in the whole Florida shooting aftermath. Sounds like there were some screw-ups along the way and they can be addressed as time goes by. My take on that part of the discussion is that the lemmings in society seem to think that cops can do it all and keep them safe every time, all the time, no matter what. No law enforcement effort could deliver those results, not even a totalitarian one. Fact is that citizens also have responsibilities and the only ways these kinds of atrocities can be prevented is if everyone takes full responsibility for their privilege of living in what is still the greatest country on earth.
As I harp endlessly, it is incomplete to talk about Second Amendment rights if the conversation also does not include discussion of Second Amendment responsibilities. President Donald Trump said essentially the same thing when he insisted that there need to be armed teachers and others in schools all the time, all over the place.
If every adult in that school had been actively practicing his or her Second Amendment responsibilities, the mass shooter would have been dropped, right from the start. I suggest that if it were commonplace around the land for all citizens to exercise their Second Amendment responsibilities, then the shooter would not have gone to the school in the first place, because instead of being a “gun free zone,” the school would have been a “gun defended zone” and a hostile environment for such evil.
If the cowardly gun grabbers and their ilk want to go around and present themselves as easy targets to mass shooters, that’s their business. But they have no business telling me or other citizens that we have to enact such death wishes on ourselves. I have no plans to cower in a corner, unarmed and defenseless, as some maniac methodically picks off people like fish in a barrel. Rather, I am and will continue to be armed and ready to defend myself.