As we are all aware, the fairly recent mass shooting at a school in Newtown Connecticut has placed the nation into an uproar over the issue of gun rights verses gun controls. As usual, instead of addressing the core issues at hand, the socialist minded leftist politicians, democrat and republican both, have decided to glam onto the anti-gun bandwagon and push for stricter gun laws.
Is this really what we should be doing in response to such an horrific act as a mass shooting?
The issue at hand should not be addressed as gun control, but more properly as an issue of crime control. The problem is not that a gun or guns were used to kill a bunch of innocent people, but that a person decided to commit that shooting. Why is no one addressing the problem of the person, instead of the tool used to commit the crime?
Why was the crime committed? At this point, I really have no idea, and neither does the majority of America, but is the weapon of choice really the problem? In a word, no it is not the problem. The problem is that a crime was committed.
Look at the issue of assault in this manner:
Let us say a person, man or woman, gets angry and wants to assault their partner in life. There is no gun in the house, so what does the person do? Does this person simply walk away because they cannot succumb to their emotional need to attack someone and cause injury? Of course not. If this were true, then we would have no issues of domestic abuse and the resulting crime rate from that ill named crime.
The person would either use their hands to attack, or grab whatever is handy. Let us say that a vacuum cleaner was nearby, and the person grabbed an extension wand to beat the crap out of their partner. Should we then ban vacuum cleaners because the extension wand was used to beat someone?
Maybe we should just ban vacuum cleaners that have extension wands? Alternatively, we could ban vacuum cleaners with multiple extension wands. That way the victim might have a chance to escape while the perpetrator reloads. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it?
Of course it is stupid, and so is the argument over gun control. We do not need gun control, and neither do we need people control, but the end result is that people control is the only possible end result of gun control.
Banning high capacity magazines, or clips holding more than ten rounds will not eliminate the potential for gun crime. In fact, in some ways it retains the probability of an increase in gun crime, especially as time goes by.
More and more people will simply comply with the rules, and eschew their constitutionally endowed right of self-defense, thus exposing themselves, and their property to those who wouldn’t give a rats ass for the lawful requirements of gun owners.
Further, surrendering our right of self-defense also decreases the possibility of defending ourselves against a corrupt political establishment, should the right parties attempt to subjugate us to a certain form of dictatorial regime, which may well happen given the current trend of affairs.
The question we have to ask here is; is gun control really meant to control gun related crime, or is it really intended to control the larger part of the law abiding gun owning population through a series of bans on certain firearms, clips and ammunition, registrations, and publicly administered oversight of gun owners?