I hate to admit I even thought of this – it’s a horrible thought, but it could be true.
Let’s suppose that in order to restrict access to guns, the anti-gunners are willing to consider students and other mass shooting victims as sacrificial lambs. You know, sacrifice the victims in pursuit of what they feel is the greater good: the removal of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Every time there’s a school or other mass shooting we get a knee-jerk reaction from some on the left: “We have to have more gun control! We have to outlaw ‘assault weapons!’ We have to make it harder for people to get guns!” And so it goes, on, and on, and on…
Seems ironic – to put it politely – that many progressives would like the Supreme Court to revisit its ruling on the Second Amendment, but certainly NOT its ruling on Roe v. Wade.
I’m old, so I remember when you could buy a gun from a mail-order catalog and have it delivered to your home. What I don’t remember is a bunch of mass shootings as a consequence. But then again, like I said I’m old so maybe I don’t remember correctly (but I do remember when the Boy Scouts . . . ).
To me, the bottom line is this: the problem isn’t guns; the problem is sick people.
What if more time, money, and effort was focused on identifying dangerously sick people and finding help for them instead of pushing for more gun control laws? Of course, first we have to make it safe to reveal mental illness struggles, but that’s a whole different issue. More laws are not the answer; some of the places in our country that have the most restrictive gun control laws also have the most gun-related crimes, such as murder.
I’m fortunate to live in Montana, where we have the some of the least restrictive gun laws. For example, I can carry a concealed weapon without a permit in anywhere in Montana except for in incorporated cities (and of course, banks, government buildings, bars, and so on).
I live in the country and offer an RV site to tourists and others. A man once knocked on my door and asked to pitch his tent overnight. I didn’t really like the looks of the guy, and I noticed California plates on his vehicle (not that I have anything against Californians, per se), so I declined and suggested some free local options for camping. His expression revealed fear. He said, “But people in Montana have guns don’t they?”
Yeah, over 20% of us do, and that’s why a guy doesn’t have to worry much. A person with a gun is just as likely to protect you as he or herself. And bad guys usually don’t mess with Montanans as they just might be risking their lives by picking on a legit gun owner. In Montana, we can use lethal force against an assailant if we feel our lives are threatened, even if we’re not at home.
These are my thoughts – what about yours? You can leave a comment by clicking/tapping “Comments” under the title.