Hlootoo's Art

rust-n-b0ne:

redbloodedamerica:

Well, first off, the United States is not alone in the world when it comes to gun violence.  The US actually ranks 121 out of all countries when it comes to homicide, has less mass murders than several European countries, and has less assaults with a deadly weapon than both the United Kingdom and Australia.  The good news however, is that violent crime and murder rates are falling not only the US but in almost all modern societies.  The bad news is that terrorist attacks are on the rise.

So, if we do not implement stricter gun control, how else can we stop bad people with guns from killing innocent people?

Here’s the problem with that question.  There is no unassailable method to stop all crime.  That is a utopian pipedream.  This is where most gun control advocates go wrong – the concept that by implementing the right rules we will somehow do away with violent crime.  Gun control has not and cannot quelch gun violence.  Even in countries that have outright confiscated and banned firearms, gun violence still persists.  Evil and sick people will always find a way to inflict violence on others, especially rampage killers and terrorists.

When it comes to gun control methods, the most important rule to remember is that criminals do not obey the law.  Therefore the ultimate smell-test when it comes to any proposed gun control legislation is whether it will actually deter a criminal or will it just punish a law-abiding citizen by making it more difficult and cumbersome to obtain and carry a firearm?  Gun-free zones, for example, do not stop mass murderers from walking right by the sign straight into a school and shooting up the place.  However, gun-free zones do prevent law-abiding citizens, who have perhaps taken a CHL class, from carrying their weapon in a school to which they could potentially protect themselves and others from an active shooter. So-called “assault” rifle legislation in California did not deter the San Bernardino shooters from easily modifying their unrestricted rifles.  No mental background tests or background investigations would have stopped Elliot Rodger from legally purchasing a firearm.  And no amount of gun control in the world would have prevented the Sandy Hook, Columbine High School, and 

Marysville Pilchuck High School shootings because all the firearms were obtained through theft or straw purchase.  In other words, criminals will find a way to obtain these weapons one way or another.

The only logical way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  I know that does not seem acceptable to many people because they want to feel in control of the problem through some other means than the very thing they associate as the problem.  But we must be honest with ourselves: guns are not the problem.  People are the problem and no amount of mass-sweeping mental health treatment, anti-gun measures, or safety precautions are going to change that.  So, when seconds count and the police are minutes away, the best thing to stop an active shooter is someone else who is equally armed. This is exactly why most public government buildings and banks have armed guards.  So, when it comes to those that are not afforded the added security of a paid security, they should at least be granted the right to personal security. This is why I wholeheartedly support teachers and faculty voluntarily obtaining a CHL and being armed in our schools.  I also suggest and encourage all private businesses to invite concealed carry in their establishments.  The better we are personally armed, the better we are at protecting ourselves, our family, and others.  I know this seems insane and out of the question for more anti-gunners but it is the inconvenient truth they need to accept.

Very well put, @redbloodedamerica.
Thank you.