In the wake of the mass shooting in Connecticut of 20 kindergarten and first grade children (and six female school employees), we are hearing the same few people calling for something to be done to tighten our gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of people known to be dangerous -- and we are hearing the same old tired excuses for doing nothing (or even making weapons more available).One of the most popular of these excuses is that phrase that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I'm really getting sick of hearing that nonsensical phrase. No one is saying that guns magically kill people all by themselves. But it is a fact that guns do make it much easier to kill people, especially large amounts of people. Does anyone really believe that as many people would have been killed if the perpetrator has been forced to use a different weapon (knife, sword, hammer, etc.) in Connecticut, Wisconsin, Colorado, Arizona, or any of the other places where mass shootings have occurred? Of course not, it is far easier to kill a bunch of people with a gun than with any other kind of weapon.
They also tell us that anyone intent on killing someone can find a weapon to carry out their deed. And they point out that a Chinese man used a knife to slash about twenty Chinese students and their teacher on the same day as the Connecticut massacre. But the fact is that none of the victims in China have died, and all of the victims in Connecticut have died -- that's a big difference. A person has a much better chance to outrun or avoid other types of weapons (or defend themselves in some way).
Then we hear that there are fewer deaths by guns in states that have a large number of guns. That one is just an outrageous lie. The simple fact is that the more guns are available, the more they will be used to take lives. A similar defense is the one saying guns are necessary for self-defense. But the guns kept in a home are far more likely to be used to murder a family member or friend, to be used in a suicide, or to accidentally kill someone, than they are to protect someone from harm.
We also hear that if only more of the victims had guns they could have stopped the mass murder. But Mother Jones studied 61 mass murders over the last few years (involving five or more deaths) -- and they found that not a single one of these had the murderer being stopped by someone in the crowd having a gun. In a few instances, the shooter was shot and killed -- but only after he had run out of ammunition or stopped the shooting for some other reason. The simple fact is that more guns doesn't make anyone safer.
Perhaps the stupidest argument is that making guns harder to get won't stop criminals from getting guns, since they will just break the law. Well, duh! Isn't that the very definition of a criminal -- someone who breaks the law. Using this kind of simple-minded reasoning, then we shouldn't have any laws at all -- because criminals will just break them. You don't do away with laws because criminals break them. You make the price for breaking them so onerous that criminals will think twice before doing it.
And finally we hear that restricting gun ownership in any way would be a violation of the Constitution's Second Amendment. This is not true either. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to own and use a gun is not absolute. Not everyone has the right to own one, and cities and states can restrict where and how guns are carried and used. I personally believe in the Second Amendment, and I believe it gives law-abiding citizens the right to own a firearm. But I also believe sensible regulations must be in place to protect the public from dangerous individuals.
It is time we have a national debate over gun laws and restrictions -- and anyone who opposes that must love their gun more than the lives of their fellow (and innocent) citizens, including children. What kind of country are we, if we can't even have the debate?
