Why More Gun Laws Cannot Prevent Mass Shootings

Texas Church Shooting
Why More Gun Laws Cannot Prevent Mass Shootings

USA -(Ammoland.com)- The pattern is predictable. A bad person takes a gun and shoots people, killing and wounding many. Before the dead are cold, the standard-bearers for civilian disarmament trot out their new legislation that will, they guarantee us, “help stop this terrible tragedy from ever happening again.”

Here’s the problem. They said that after the last tragedy and subsequent round of restrictions on firearm owners. And the tragedy before that. And the tragedy before that.

The most recent bandwagons for the civilian disarmament crowd is the terrible tragedies in a Texas church (26 dead) and in Las Vegas (58 dead.) The horror is unimaginable. No rational person can even begin to comprehend the mind of someone wanting to kill and maim so many innocent people.

These shootings rub very uncomfortable facts in our society's collective face.

The Las Vegas killer had no criminal history. Not for violence, not for anything. Police had no idea this man would do such a terrible thing.

The Las Vegas killer obeyed every legal requirement, including repeated background checks, when he obtained the guns he used to such despicable effect.

The Texas killer, a man with a long history of violence, should have been prohibited from owning firearms but the system failed – again.
The Texas killer's murderous rampage was stopped by a legal civilian firearm owner, an NRA instructor with a personally-owned AR-15.

Is the lightbulb glowing yet?

No law on planet Earth can stop these sorts of killers. Not one.

The anti-gun crowd hates hearing that. It flies in the face of their core belief – that if we just pass enough laws, we can stop these tragedies from occurring.

That brings up the one fact their core belief cannot handle, and therefore must reject: Laws only affect those willing to obey them. Criminals, by their very nature, are not affected by them.

The Criminal Code of Canada is a very thick document. All those laws don’t prevent individuals with bad intent from breaking them – a fact our overflowing prisons sadly confirm.

Don’t get us wrong, please. What happened in Texas and Las Vegas is terrible. It's utterly beyond the comprehension of any calm, rational human being.

Yet it happened.

There is one simple explanation for why we cannot understand people who commit such horrors, and that is because we would never do that. Not the staunchest anti-gun advocate. Not the most ardent gun owner. Not one of us would do that, ever.

As a result, we cannot comprehend, let alone understand, how someone else could. So those seeking simplistic solutions attempt to pass more laws to harass the people who are of no danger to anyone. And, of course, more restrictions on guns that “look bad.”

Our legislatures occupy themselves with their busywork because, even though these new laws are just as useless as the last round, at least they’re seen to be doing something. And doing something always feels better than doing nothing.

However, before the next round of legislative insanity (doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results) is passed into law, let’s ask three pertinent questions.

What is the goal of the legislation? Do the measures contained within this legislation achieve that goal?
Is there real evidence to back up those measures? If not, why not?
Is there a better alternative?

We understand the desire of anti-gun advocates to stop these killings. That’s a goal we all share, and for the same reason. The senseless killing of innocent people horrifies us beyond measure.

Nobody hates these tragedies more than lawful gun owners. We are the scapegoats for the anger, the rage, the frustration and powerlessness everyone feels in the wake of these tragedies.

However, banning guns is not the answer. It’s a convenient band-aid on a much deeper societal problem. Anyone who believes in these Pollyanna solutions might as well reach for the pixie dust and unicorn poop too. Simply put, it’s like banning cars because someone drove drunk and killed someone.

You can’t stop alcohol-fuelled dangers by banning cars and similarly, you cannot stop mass murders by banning guns… or box cutters, or fertilizer, or diesel fuel, or chlorine, or jet planes, or flammable liquids. The tool is never the problem.

The human being controlling the tool is the problem.

Canadian Shooting Sports AssociationUntil we deal with the underlying issues that cause people to go on these terrible murder sprees, we will never stop them, no matter how many anti-gun laws we pass.

About Canadian Shooting Sports Association:

The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada’s firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities. Website www.cdnshootingsports.org

  • 9 thoughts on “Why More Gun Laws Cannot Prevent Mass Shootings

    1. This leftist movement began by people asking the government to do things for them. Now the government feels like we want them to dictate every move we make. Idiots like Schumer and Pelosi try to be our nannies and tell us what we can do, when we can do it and what we should do. I have lived a long time without their help and I don’t need it now. Passing more gun laws make it seem they are looking after us and that leads to socialism and then communism. All that has been tried once or more times and it is evident that it won’t work.

    2. Perhaps one day the antis will have an epiphany and realize what most normal folks already know – laws do not prevent crime – if that were true there would be virtually no crime as everyone would be law abiding. The hoplophobes simply transfer their fear of guns – and the FACT that they know they have zero impulse control – and deign to transfer to the rest of us that fear. Never mind actually trying to do something about the criminals.

    3. Anyone remember the left’s crusade to empty the institutions of people on meds for mental disorders in the late seventies and early eighties? The left said it was unfair and these people would surely take their meds if let out. How many have had kids and do they have problems? Just wondering. Any government studies?

      1. If even a eighth of the Lefts illusions of utopia panned out they wouldn’t appear to be Lunatics,rather than emptying the mental facilities thus increasing crime and homelessness.
        How caring and feeling is the Lefts warm and fuzzy mantra working out when it comes to reality…..

      2. I don’t know about government studies but as a therapist, I’ve seen the criminally mentally ill either on the streets or stuffed into nursing home type placements where the violence continues without any guards or protection for the staff.

    4. im with joe everyone should own and carry a gun.you folks on the left have no biss telling me what i can and cant do.

    5. This article will never be circulated beyond this release by Ammo Land. Why? Because it contains common sense reasoning to a complex issue that must be elevated to the forefront of society. It’s just not complicated enough to attract any serious consideration from politicians that want to elevate their careers. The days of common sense solutions are behind us, sadly. There was a time in the history of this great nation when it was understood, you don’t shoot at me and I won’t shoot at you. People were, for the most part, armed. To shoot innocent people, the gunman knew there was a pretty good chance he would be the one taking the room temperature challenge. Why? Because there would be hot lead heading coming back his direction. He would have to find a location where everyone else would be disarmed so he could do his terrible deed unchallenged. Sounds like today’s laws are doing the dirty work for anyone inclined to do evil.
      Here’s an idea. All citizens of these United States should, by law, have the right to arm themselves and shoot back if fired upon. Never force a citizen to disarm and give up his right to defend himself. Naw, that would be too simple. Too easy. Too old fashioned. Not complicated enough for today’s modern thinkers. Brain fart over. Sarcasm off.

    6. It’s actually obvious unless you are a civilian disarmament proponent,who leans Leftist no matter which party you claim to be a member of .

    Comments are closed.