RealClearPolitics - Articles - Aftermath of the 1960s?
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Aftermath of the 1960s?
Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun — which is easy to get illegally?
This is the question I want desperately answered. I don’t understand what “logic” drives someone to proclaim that restricting guns will prevent murders by people using guns. Ok, if guns had never been invented we wouldn’t have people getting killed by them, but would we then put restrictions on who could own knives, or baseball bats, or ropes?
One of the many hard facts that get overlooked by those impressed by visions and rhetoric is that mass shootings almost invariably occur in gun-free zones like schools, workplaces, or houses of worship.
When has a mass killer opened fire on a meeting of the National Rifle Association or fired on a group of hunters?
Instead of banning guns, maybe we should rethink 1960s dogmas.
This is what you see over, and over. Someone gets shot/killed with a gun, but the media neglects to report that this was supposedly a “gun free” zone. What happened to their zone? Well, the shooter walked right through it didn’t they. Nobody stopped them. Are we going to put walls and metal detectors, and search everybody that wants to enter one of these “gun free” zones? Would the public stand for that? (That was a serious question, because I honestly don’t know if they would.)