Gun control does not work. Period. The most recent example most devastatingly occurred this past week, unsurprisingly, in California.
While some reading this piece may claim that insensitive conservatives are using the slaughter of a dozen innocent lives to push their agenda, let’s take a quick look at what the left is saying:
Of course, the tragic event that occurred at Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California last Wednesday can rightfully be said to have affected those killed as well as their loved ones, but how do anti-gunners truly believe gun control would work in modern day society?
Firearms have been owned and used throughout United States history, and there is virtually, and thankfully for our Constitutional rights, no way to seize all legally and illegally owned firearms at this point. More importantly, such would surely leave the law-abiding citizen unarmed, giving criminals full power over our safety.
Naturally, those directly affected by the tragedy may have a knee-jerk reaction to hate firearms, but a more vigilant civilian might take a different frame of mind where they refuse to be unarmed and allow such an event to occur again, at least at such magnitude.
Providing an example, if someone were to lose a loved one to, say, a car accident, would they suddenly demand that vehicles be banned? Likely not.
Yet the anti-gun rhetoric has been so blatantly spread among the left that those who have lost loved ones to the most recent shooting are demanding an end to firearm-related violence and are arguably going about it the wrong way.
Susan Orfanos, mother to one victim, Telemachus Orfanos, who survived the Las Vegas shooting, said during an interview, “I don’t want prayers. I don’t want thoughts. I want gun control…No more guns.”
Well, as mentioned before, that is virtually impossible to accomplish, both realistically and constitutionally. And while those with empathy will still pray for all affected by this and other tragedies, such mentality begs the question: how do gun-grabbing libs truly expect such to occur?
It is necessary to address that a would-be mass shooter with malicious intent would arguably be more quickly taken out by a law-abiding citizen with a gun, likely in a more firearm-friendly state.
Providing an analogy which takes guns out of the equation, consider a pack of animals or insects where only one member has a means of defense, whether that be teeth, claws, or a stinger, and thus controls the power of the group. It is obvious which creature would be the most ‘powerful’ of the swarm, pack, or whatever that may be.
Conversely, in a different situation where all of such animals had the same means of defense, there would be less of a control hierarchy.
The same argument applies to human beings, only, unfortunately, we do not have just animal instructs engrained in us, but rather there are those among us who intend to inflict harm on others. By implementing gun control, we are essentially giving similar power to criminals and the government.
Those with strong support for the second amendment do not stand behind it because they value their firearms over human life, but rather, because they want to defend it. They also point to the basis behind the Second Amendment… the ability to defend the population from a tyrannical government.
Yet in liberal states such as California, this concept appears unknown, with many news sources claiming that the shooter used a 45-calibur Glock 21 with an ‘extended magazine’ holding over 10 rounds, which, in many other states, would not be considered illegal if purchased today and carried for self-defense.
Despite the blue state’s highly infringing gun laws, such an attack still occurred.
Unfortunately, that is the reality in California where citizens are less likely to be armed due to increased regulations and the liberal gun stigma. But in less regulated states, the fact of the matter is that citizens are damn well more likely to be armed and equipped to fight back.