Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Banning guns not the answer

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Yes, this seems to be the governing philosophy of our Congress and chief executive these days.
The latest crisis is the tragic shooting at the Navy Yard.
Forget the fact that the shooter should never have been allowed to own a gun.
Forget the fact that fundamental proven security processes and procedures were not in place at the facility.
Yes, forget all the violations of common sense, and just get rid of guns.
Almost all of the mass shootings have been committed by those who were breaking existing laws, or where the existing laws were not followed.
It is not a stretch to conclude that no matter what legal restrictions were placed on guns, the same tragic shootings would have occurred, simply because they were committed by law breakers.
So, what effect would a new law have? It would just be another charge against the defendant.
Some killings have been a result of failed government policies such as Fast and Furious, where thousands of guns were given to Mexican criminals and eventually wound up killing our own in the U.S.
This was preventable.
The fact of the matter is, if you create a gun-free zone without ensuring the people in it are protected, you create a killing field for anyone who wants to inflict pain for any reason.
There are never press reports of the thousands of successful defensive gun events.
This is because the members of the press, in general, would like to see the second amendment disappear.
However, what they don’t seem to realize is, if this is successful, the small portions of the first and fourth amendment that remain relevant are also in jeopardy of disappearing.
It is not the gun, it is the gunman.
A gun in trained, proper hands would stop (and actually has stopped) these types of tragedies. This is why, rather than eliminating guns, we need to promote owning guns.
Rather than using this tragedy as a platform to attack the Constitution, we need to use it to attack the issues that lead up to and, as a result, caused this event to occur.
Why would a government facility, especially a facility so close to the White House and Congress, be so lenient about its security?
Why would someone with the background of this individual be allowed to own a gun?
What security breaches/shortfalls created the environment where this could occur?
Why was a protective force absent from the area?
Was there a delay in responding? If so, why? How can these be corrected?
What other facilities have these same security lapses?
Once you get the answers to these questions, then you will get a better handle on the real problem.