Every time a tragedy takes place, people immediately become emotional, irrational, and begin to blame gun laws and the guns themselves as the scapegoat. They claim that if only guns were harder to attain legally, then less gun violence would take place. This isn't an entirely unreasonable conclusion, but it is entirely misguided and entirely FALSE when the facts are considered. In fact, history proves that gun control does NOT work, and has actually made gun violence worse once it has been implemented, as I will prove later.
Also, people think that school shootings and such are an exclusively American phenomena, and that this is only due to our relatively lax gun laws, but this is entirely untrue. People only think this way because they focus all of their attention on the US, ignore other variables such as race, geography, the SHOOTER etc.. and just blame it on the gun.
People also constantly ignore that many similar tragedies have taken place in countries where gun laws are much stricter than our own. Yet these events have never garnered as much attention as the Columbine shooting, and will certainly be all but forgotten after the recent massacre. People all over the world focus all of their attention on the US, overemphasize what takes place in our country, and ignore their own problems, and their own similar tragedies. This causes the ignorance towards our gun laws. Most notable tragedies are:
- The École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in which 14 people were killed, plus the shooter.
- The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in 1996 in which 17 people were shot and killed.
- The Erfert Shooting in Germany in 2002 in which 18 people were shot and killed.
Now, these crimes were committed with simple semi-automatic weapons firing pistol rounds, (and in the case with the Montreal shooting, a civilian model semi-automatic rifle). These type of semi-automatic pistol caliber firearm is what was used in the recent VT shooting, and is what has received the demonization by the gun-control advocates.
These types of weapons are legal everywhere, and are still entirely legal in Canada and Germany.
But the UK got caught up in a liberal frenzy and overreacted, and made a gigantic legal blunder .
After the aforementioned Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in which 18 were killed, the UK legislature voted decisively and banned all legal ownership of handguns in their country in 1997. This irrational law actually caused UK handgun crime to GO WAY UP.
UK handgun violence continued to go up exponentially. Then in 2003 (6 years into the ban) they had TWICE the amount of handgun crimes than they did in 1997 before the ban was enforced!!!
Think about that... by banning handguns, they actually entirely defeated the entire motive for doing so in the first place! By banning handguns, they made gun violence worse. By disarming law abiding citizens, they did nothing to address the actual source of crime, which is the group of people who ILLEGALLY attain handguns and who will not obey gun laws. Committing this major legal blunder only resulted in emboldened criminals who could prey upon citizens knowing that their prey were unarmed.
Now, certainly this simple fact will be ignored by the liberals in the US and elsewhere that will call for changes in US gun laws. Or perhaps if they are actually aware of what happened in the UK, they might pretend that the US might have better success than the UK did if similar gun control is implemented.
But the history and the current reality of our own country shows that this will not work here either.
Take a look here. Compare the murder rate/violence rate in US states, and then consider their respective gun laws:
#1 District of Columbia (Washington D.C mind you) : 3.597 per 10,000 people
Washington D.C. (which is a federal district, not a state) had the tightest gun control laws in the entire country, until just last month, all handguns and concealed carry of any weapons was entirely illegal. Yet it has the HIGHEST murder rate.
#16 Texas : 0.597 per 10,000 people
Texas has very, very lax gun laws as I'm sure you're aware. It has about 1/6th the murder rate as Washington D.C and is at number 16.
#33 Washington (the STATE) : 0.302 per 10,000 people
Washington State, has a much lower murder rate, and is where I live. And my state's gun laws are similar to those of Texas. We are a blue (Democrat majority) state, but we still have a gigantic gun lobby and moderate Democrats who opposed a bill that would have enforced California-style gun laws, numerous times. Hell, our last Mayor was a member of the NRA.
Then you look at the state with the LOWEST murder rate:
#51 Maine: 0.136 per 10,000 people
It's #51 (among 50 states and 1 federal district), it has the lowest murder rate in our entire country, yet Maine has been continually criticized for it's lax gun laws by delusional liberals. Maine has probably THE LEAST AMOUNT OF GUN CONTROL in our entire country. Maine has NO permits or licenses required for any firearm, and no waiting lists, yet it has the LOWEST MURDER RATE IN THE COUNTRY.
Don't you see that? The tighter the gun control, the higher the murder rate. Counterintuitive? Not really, because when law-abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals who don't obey the laws in the first place have free reign. They have defenseless citizens to prey upon. All gun control does is make it so that the only people with guns are the criminals.
So to all the misguided liberals; Are you really honest about your desire to reduce gun crime and violence? Or are you just really against guns first and foremost? Are you against the gun itself, do you hate the inanimate object, or do you hate the person who actually uses it illegally?
Because... it seems that if you REALLY want gun crime tp be reduced, you should be PRO-GUN! You should be AGAINST gun-control if you look at the facts instead of allowing your irrational emotional response to a tragedy to dictate your views.
GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.