Gun Control Stupidity

By Wayne Kulick

Take a look at some of these headlines:

17 YEAR OLD ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH ARMED ROBBERY
FELON CHARGED WITH GUN POSSESSION
ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING IN BOWLING ALLEY INJURES FOUR

I could post hundreds, if not thousands, of headlines like this. In each case the felon was ILLEGALLY carrying a handgun. We’ll even ignore the fact they were engaged in an illegal act. The gun control nuts’ (and I do mean nuts) position is that if we create enough laws, if we ban enough guns, if we restrict the right of people to defend themselves, surely the crime rate must decrease.

But wait, surely the above criminals know the law, right? They know they shouldn’t be carrying handguns illegally I’m sure. There are enough laws already covering every conceivable act with a weapon. There is not a crime imaginable using a weapon that we don’t have a law to prosecute the perpetrator under, yet still we have crime.

The gun control nuts haven’t the ability to follow a logical sequence of events to recognize that creating more gun laws does not impact the criminal one iota. Hence why they’re criminals! Gun laws only impact the LAW-ABIDING citizen. I challenge the gun control nuts to find me a single incident where a person legally permitted to carry a weapon has purposefully engaged in an illegal act with that weapon. Excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for that incident. They’ll be hard pressed to find one. Why? Because they’re LAW-ABIDING!

Using the gun control nut form of logical thought, increasing the number of laws regarding drugs should eliminate illicit drug use right? There are laws ad nauseum prohibiting the possession, use, distribution, transport and transfer yet one would argue we haven’t made a dent in drug use. Again, the LAW-ABIDING citizen follows the law and isn’t an issue when it comes to drugs. Are we to believe for a second another law on illicit drug use will have any effect? Even the gun control nuts can’t be that stupid.

Here are the headlines that WILL make a difference in gun crime (at least against LAW-ABIDING citizens):

DRIVER FATALLY SHOT CARJACKER (Driver had a permit to carry a concealed handgun)
Arlington man, 68, with permit uses his gun to thwart robber
Bus Driver Shoots at 3 Youths, Hitting One, After Being Stabbed (driver legally carrying)
Man with concealed-weapon permit shoots man, police say

Again, I could post plenty of these as well. Criminals are probably THE best at risk management. Hence why they prey on the weak. If a criminal has the least bit suspicion a potential suspect could defend themselves, they choose another. When you have a state with reasonable concealed carry laws, the criminal’s assessment is much harder. He (or she) doesn’t know who might be able to defend themselves. Crime rates drop. Sorry, those are the statistics.

A very thorough study showed:

“allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly….[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”

Add to that, Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled,

“official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.”

In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled,

“[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

It all boils down to rights. YOU are the only one who can have even the slightest chance of protecting yourself. When seconds count, police are only minutes away. This isn’t a derogatory jibe at law enforcement (my brother is a State Trooper). They are very overworked and resource constrained like many other agencies. They do the best they can with what they have and unfortunately their time is taken up by the high crime rate areas. You’ll not see one stationed at your local restaurant, church or bowling alley though I can cite many cases where a nut walks in and starts shooting.

As for me, my safety and that of my family is too precious to place that kind of responsibility in the hands of law enforcement to protect us. Some might say, but Wayne, the chances of that happening are almost infinitesimal. My reply is, the victims of Virginia Tech, church shootings, restaurant shootings etc. all thought that too. I bet they would have given anything to either have a weapon themselves or someone armed close by.

I’ve been criticized that I advocate everyone be armed. An exaggeration. I would never advocate that. What I do advocate is the ability for everyone to exercise any right bestowed unto them by law. That goes for rights I may not agree with. The choice to carry a weapon is a very serious one and only the person making it can know if they are up to the responsibility and emotional maturity to do so. Not everyone is. But don’t make laws on emotion. Make laws on what the data shows.

Wayne Kulick is a retired Naval Officer and currently works supporting the intelligence community. You can read more of his commentary at his blogsite:

So much stupidity, so little time…