By Steve Pomper | August 8, 2019
The government taking guns from law-abiding gun owners and preventing them from possessing or buying firearms after some monster shoots at a crowd injuring and killing innocent people is nonsensical. It makes about as much sense as taking away a law-abiding driver’s car after a drunk driver kills people with his car.
I know what anti-gun activists are thinking: taking away a good person’s car because a bad person committed a crime with a car makes no sense. That’s true. But that’s precisely what the anti-gun forces are calling for with legal gun owners.
Just like guns, cars are powerful, useful tools with which people can injure and kill other people when misused. What’s the difference? Perception. Everyone is familiar with automobiles. This also used to be the case with firearms in America.
Start recieving the latest news from American patriot and former Navy Seal Carl Higbie.
But anti-gun forces have been successful in demonizing guns and the people who use them—demonizing law-abiding gun owners and even cops. People fear the unfamiliar, things they do not understand, and what leftist adults have taught them since kindergarten is guns are evil. And that fear causes people to be irrational and to offer ineffective “do-something” solutions.
Again, I know what anti-gun activists are thinking about my comparison. Cars and guns are different. How? No one would expect a law-abiding, safe driver to suffer for a law-breaking dangerous driver who commits vehicular assault, manslaughter, homicide, or drunk-driving. Of course not, right? So, why should law-abiding gun owners suffer?
I’ve taken several people to shoot a gun for the first time. At first, they are very hesitant, just like they were in driver’s ed when first behind the wheel of a car. After they shoot for a while, you can see their trepidation dissipate. The fear is replaced with a better understanding of the tool. And, in these cases, they enjoyed the experience; some have even purchased their own guns, and they are still shooting regularly today. Again, just like with a car.
When an evil, mentally ill —or both— person misuses a gun to go on a killing spree, what in the world does any law-abiding gun owner have to do with that crime? Nothing. The anti-gun left screams for “common sense” gun laws, but there is overwhelming evidence that those same social justice crusaders refuse to enforce the gun laws we already have.
They cite racial and socioeconomic inequities in the criminal justice system. Well, just look at so-called gun crime in Democrat-run cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Houston (no, not Texas, too). Does it make any sense to scream for more “common sense” gun laws when you don’t enforce the laws that already exist?
The cherry on top of this gun derangement sundae is the anti-gun advocates finally coming clean about their desire for a total gun ban and confiscation. When some right-wing, left-wing, or mentally ill miscreant misuses a gun to kill and injure, the left’s first instinct is to disarm potential victims.
The anti-gun left pedals the myth there is an “epidemic” of “mass shootings,” which is not true. The 24/7 social media and cable TV news cycles and their pundits’ relentless anti-gun screeds create the illusion of an epidemic. But let’s say there is for the sake of argument.
How irrational is it, if you feel people are at such risk of “gun violence,” to take away the people’s right to the most practical means of self-defense. Shouldn’t you want to arm potential victims rather than put them at greater risk of harm by infringing on their right to self-defense? In fact, isn’t it unethical —even immoral— to enact policies and laws that make people more vulnerable to violent, armed criminals?
Would you also go into a neighborhood experiencing a rash of arsons and take away their fire hydrants?
This piece originally appeared in OpsLens and is used by permission.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carl Higbie. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.