What would happen if gun-prohibitionists got what they wanted and disarmed honest citizens?
Last month, a Democrat tried to kill many Republican politicians on a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia. Within minutes and as expected, gun prohibitionist politicians said we needed more gun laws. What would happen if the people who want you disarmed had their way? The prohibitionists asked for universal background checks and more gun-free zones. Would that work to stop even a single mass murder? Let’s see what would happen if the prohibitionists got what they wanted.
The murderer who attacked Republican Congressmen in Alexandria bought his gun legally in Illinois. Illinois is one of the most anti-gun states in the US. The murderer had a background check before he ever touched a firearm. He passed more background checks when he bought his rifle and handgun. He filled out all the forms that the anti-gun advocates want filled out. In Illinois, he even needed a state permit and background check to buy ammunition. He passed them all.
These congressmen and their staff were disarmed because they worked in and traveled through “gun-free” Washington, DC. Five people were injured in the attack even though the attack lasted approximately 5 minutes. The victims survived because they were extremely lucky and they received prompt medical attention. None of those firearms regulations stopped the murderer because gun laws only stop honest gun owners. Is this failure an isolated exception or is it the rule?
Let’s look back at the murderer who attacked gay men and women at the Pulse Nightclub last year in Orlando, Florida. The murderer passed many state and local background checks. He even had a security clearance by a federal agency and passed their background checks as well. The murderer bought his guns legally in Florida and passed those state background checks.
The Pulse Nightclub was a gun free zone due to the Florida law that requires all bars that serve alcohol to be gun-free zones. You’re prohibited from bringing your legally owned gun with you even if you don’t drink. There were also two armed security guards at the Pulse nightclub.
The murderer shot way through security to enter the nightclub. He murdered unarmed victims for over three hours. 58 people were injured and 49 more were killed. The murderer was finally stopped when police broke down the walls so that the surviving victims could escape from the club. Disarming the victims was supposed to make them safer. Background checks and gun-free zones failed again.
There was a mass murder at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The racist murderer shot nine black men and women. The murderer also left one person with non-fatal injuries during his six to six-minute attack. The murderer bought his handgun legally and passed a federal background check.
In 2015 when the attack took place, all churches in South Carolina were off limits to legally licensed concealed carriers. There is an exception if the church governing board has granted prior permission to a licensed concealed carrier. These victims were disarmed but the murderer wasn’t.
Also in 2015, a Muslim couple attacked their co-workers at a County Health Department Christmas party in San Bernardino, California. California has some of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the US. All legal gun owners have to pass a firearms safety test. California gun owners can only buy one gun a month. California state law limits the magazine capacity of firearms owned by civilians. There is a ten-day waiting period after you buy a firearm before you may take possession of it. The murderers passed their background checks performed by the California Department of Justice. The guns they used in the attack were purchased legally. The husband and wife couple killed fourteen people and wounded twenty-two others during the attack.
The murders took place at the San Bernardino California Inland Regional Center. This is a gun free zone under California law. The victims were disarmed because they work in government offices. They were disarmed because there is a school and daycare facility in the Regional Center complex. The victims followed those firearms restrictions while the murderers ignored them. There was no physical security to stop armed attackers from bringing weapons into the buildings, nor were armed security personnel pre-positioned across the campus.
A lone gunman killed his professor and eight other students at the Umpqua Community College near Roseburg, Oregon. Nine other students were also injured. Oregon state law requires a background check before civilians can purchase a handgun, the weapon used by the murderer. The guns used in the murders were purchased legally by the murderer and his family.
The victims were unarmed. Some of the students near the murder scene were gun owners, but they were not allowed to carry their legally owned firearms onto the campus. (See comment below.) The Umpqua Community College is a gun free zone under Oregon law. Even the security guards are unarmed. The murderer shot students for eleven minutes until he was finally shot by police. I’m noticing a pattern here. Are you?
The list goes on. We could document the same factors involved at the Isla Vista murders near the University of California at Santa Barbara. There, six people were killed and fourteen others were injured.
We might say that the murderer at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut was an exception. He did not pass a background check. This murderer shot his mother in the head while she slept. He murdered his mother in order to take her firearms and then attack a school. The Connecticut mandatory background check law did not prevent her murder and the murder of twenty-seven other victims. There is more than historical evidence that gun control fails.
We have evidence every night from Chicago, Baltimore, Newark and Los Angeles. The ongoing failure of gun control only seems to goad the anti-rights gun-prohibitionists to demand more regulation of honest citizens. Murderers don’t follow the law and submit to background checks. Only their victims do.
Gun control fails, so why do gun prohibitionists continue to call for more? Their goal is not public safety but citizen disarmament. They want us disarmed, not the criminals. By disarming honest citizens, we might have reduced a few preventable gun accidents. We produced unstoppable mass killer rampages instead. I don’t want my friends and family to be the next unarmed victims.
I gave you a thousand words. Please leave a like, share, or a comment. RM