Gun control is not the answer to mass killings
Views 17 | Time to read: 3 minutes | Uploaded: 10 - 25 - 2017 | By: Grant Gardner
In the wake of the incredibly tragic Las Vegas massacre, calls for further restrictions on guns have erupted from the left, with former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leading the charge minutes after the attack occurred. Many argue that without these terrible weapons, mass killings would significantly decrease or stop completely. However, outlawing guns only affects law-abiding citizens and would not change the weapons already in use. The answer is not restricting which guns are legal; rather, it is in providing law enforcement the necessary resources to prevent mass killings or terror incidents.
Let’s start with Clinton’s statement following the Las Vegas shooting as a baseline for the left’s arguments. Shortly after the shooting occurred, she tweeted multiple times encouraging people to challenge a House bill related to relaxing the restrictions on the sale of suppressors. Clinton’s emotional argument ignored the facts. She claimed that the shooting would have been worse had a suppressor been used, but this is false. A suppressed weapon has the same decibel rating as a jackhammer and sounds similar to unsuppressed gunfire. Even if the shooter had used a suppressor, the suppressor would likely melt off, especially given that the guns were modified to shoot fully automatically. Clinton stood on the graves of people who had not even been identified yet to politicize an issue about which she is wrong.
The real question is, if assault rifles were banned, would that stop mass shootings or killings? The answer is no. If someone is so determined to break the law and murder someone, they will not think twice about breaking another law to acquire the weapon they want. For example, France has gun bans, yet Paris has been hit hard with terror incidents involving assault weapons illegally purchased off the black market or imported. In addition, the millions of assault rifles already in use would be grandfathered in, which means that weapons purchased before any law’s enaction could legally be resold. Because of this, there would still be legal means of purchasing the guns. Any sort of blanket ban only adversely impacts law abiding citizens. The government should be focused on preventing illegal gun trade rather than taking weapons out of the hands of people who use them for their intended purposes.
Imagine an America in which there were no guns. Do people still kill each other? Absolutely. Look at the truck attack in Nice that killed 86 people and injured over 400. It is impossible to ban every single thing that could possibly be used to harm people. If that were to happen, unhealthy food, cars, and even playing sports would fall under such a ban. Criminals and mentally unstable people will find a way to commit crimes with whatever tools are at their disposal.
The irony of those calling for gun control is that they either hide behind armed security, or call armed police if they are in trouble. That in itself speaks volumes about the reality of the world today. Guns are a necessary deterrent against criminals wishing to do others harm. The vast majority of mass shootings occur at soft targets - places that do not allow weapons. Clearly, the solution lies in law enforcement minimizing the exposure that these soft targets face by enhancing venue security and hiring more personnel. Expanding soft targets by taking guns away from well-intended people puts more innocent lives in harm’s way.