As calls for more gun control come in the wake of the November 1 LAX shooting, it behooves us to stop and ask ourselves: what if gun control is an impediment instead of a solution?
Think about it; California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and they have laws against murdering one’s fellow citizens in cold blood. But an individual intent on murder is not swayed by laws against doing so. Nor is he swayed by concern over the possibility that his actions might violate gun regulations.
We saw this at LAX, just as we saw it to varying degrees in the crimes at the DC Navy Yard and Sandy Hook Elementary.
In Washington, DC, guns are heavily regulated and gun control is draconian–but Aaron Alexis was not hindered by these things. When the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary took place, Connecticut already had the 5th most stringent gun control laws in the country, but Adam Lanza was not hindered by this, either.
At the Aurora theater, law-abiding citizens were barred from being armed to defend themselves, and at Ft. Hood, the soldiers whom Nidal Hasan attacked were vulnerable because they were mandatorily disarmed.
What if gun control is not the solution? In fact, what if it’s an impediment to the real solution–which is doing everything we can to ensure citizens can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms with which to defend themselves?
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.