The Left is licking its collective chops at using the Aurora tragedy to further restrict gun ownership and curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens. The notion goes something like this: “If we just would have done X then Y would not have happened ” — X being some kind of additional gun restriction and Y being some kind of gun related tragedy. In the collective mind of gun grabbers, the only way to stop Y from happening is to continue to move in the direction of X.
I’ll focus on mass shootings to make my point since they affect more people at one time and by one assailant. Applying this notion to a graph, it would look something like this (see graph above):
Now I know that by applying mathematical models I probably have lost every liberal already, but bear with me. What if the above graph were proved to be completely upside down? What if the relationship between gun availability and mass shootings was entirely the opposite?
If, as the liberals like to believe, there is a relationship between gun availability and mass shootings, then let’s look at places where guns and ammunition are most available and in the largest quantities. If we can find places where gun restrictions are the least and guns and ammunition are most readily available, then we can surely prove that the availability of guns causes a higher incidence of mass shootings. Because after all, that’s what the Left keeps telling us: if guns were less readily available (restricted more), there would be less incidents of mass shootings.
Since gun shows are the bane of the Left, let’s start there. Some of the gun shows I attend have literally tens of thousands of guns and enough ammunition to feed all of them many times over. Everything is lying on tables for anyone and everyone to pick up and handle. Quick, how many mass shootings have ever occurred at gun shows? Cricket, cricket, cricket. Answer: Zero.
Probably the next places guns and ammo are most prolific would be at a wholesale gun distributor. Mass shootings? Zero. How about a gun auction? I’ve been to some where they sell more than six-thousand guns in two days. Mass shootings? Zero. How about the National Firearms Museum? Mass shootings? Zero. How about a large gun retailer like Cabelas? Mass shootings? Zero. Gun manufacturers? Zero. Gun Ranges? Zero.
And, my favorite, machine gun shoots where crazed (in the mind of liberals) machine gun owners pour hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange in a given day. They have it all, large quantities of guns with tremendous firepower and lots of ammo to feed them. Surely the blood has poured from innocents at such an event. Mass shootings? You guessed it, zero.
Hmmmmmm. So there is not a relationship between mass shootings and the availability of large quantities of guns and ammunition. Why would that be? Could it possibly be that liberals are, gasp, wrong? They keep telling us that guns and their availability are the problem and if we would just restrict them then mass killers would not be able to act. Yet, I have given numerous examples where guns and ammo are readily available and yet the incidences of mass shootings at these events or locations are nonexistent.
Could it possibly be that someone intent on killing large numbers of people in an efficient way would rather do it in a place where large numbers of guns are not present? Could it be that those intent on mass killings do not obey the law? Could it be that there might be other things to stop mass killers besides placing further restrictions on law-abiding gun owners?
Welcome to gun free zones my friend: Shopping malls, movie theatres, schools, and utopian islands in Norway where all guns are banned or highly restricted. And what do they all have in common? They are places where some of the most horrific mass shootings have taken place in recent times. They are also locations that restricted the use of citizens being privately armed on the premises.
The answer is simple: Allow law-abiding gun owners the ability to defend themselves and others in places where it is impossible to provide other security measures.
Now back to the title: If more laws (restrictions) would have stopped the alleged Aurora shooter, then what about the existing ones he already broke? Surely he had heard about the one against murder. Does anyone think that had he been denied the opportunity to buy firearms that this would have stopped him from pursuing alternative mass murder options?
For entertainment, I would challenge the reader to reply with every law that the alleged shooter potentially broke and then ask yourself one question: Would one more law have made the difference?