Gunning For Your Guns




By Phil Erwin

The bodies in Roseburg, Oregon weren’t even cold before Obama was on camera, berating the nation for allowing such violence to occur.

The Law Professor, demonstrating just how ill-equipped he is to actually solve anything.

Hillary jumped right onto his coattails, promising she’d fix things with an Executive Order, and slamming Bernie Sanders in the debate for failing to toe the Democrat Party’s strict anti-gun line. “This has gone on for too long,” she berated him, implying if we just elect her, gun violence will cease.


And of course, the undercurrent in all the posturing is the notion that Republicans And Their NRA Army Want Children Gunned Down!   Which is why They Won’t Pass Gun-Control Legislation!

Contrary to what Urban-Zombie-Liberals believe, nobody in his right mind wants mindless violence to persist and proliferate. That kind of insanity is the realm of Islamic extremists.   And maybe the Black Lives Matter crowd. (“What do we want? Dead Cops!”)

If there were a magic wand we could wave to suddenly end all mindless, person-to-person gun violence, we would all be for it. Liberal dogma notwithstanding, Conservatives do not want to see gun violence perpetuated.

The problem is not the NRA. The problem is: No magic wand.

Yet, Liberals think that, if only they can pass the right gun-control laws, put the pen to the right Executive Order, why, gun violence will just magically, miraculously, Liberal-tastically, disappear.

Let’s try looking at this problem with non-ideological eyes.

First, what’s the root cause of gun violence? Is it guns? Or is it people wielding guns in violent ways?

Well, if guns caused murder, and no guns meant no murder, then murder would never have existed before the first gun was invented. The inconvenient truth is that murder way predates guns.   People have used knives, swords, axes, clubs, rocks and poisons for millennia as instruments of murder. Guns have been around only a few centuries. The relevant equation is not: Guns = Murder.

The equation is: People + Weapons + Motivation = Murder

What legislation countermands that?

And consider this: Vehicle-caused deaths outweigh gun-caused deaths by a factor of about 3-to-1. So if your true concern is reducing unnecessary deaths, then the place to focus is reducing vehicular deaths.

So if you support “controlling” (Liberal-speak for banning) guns for the purpose of saving lives, you simply cannot logically ignore automobiles. If you want to ban guns, you’d better argue for banning cars, too.

Otherwise, people might think you’re insincere.

Of course, nobody would be caught dead (pardon) talking about banning autos.   But Liberals would repeal the Second Amendment in a heartbeat if they could.

The Press absolutely pounded Jeb Bush for pointing out that, when people feel Something Must Be Done!! – that emotion often translates into doing the wrong thing. And more gun “control” laws are the wrong thing.

A 100%-effective gun ban, including complete confiscation of all existing guns, would seem to make far more sense. But it would be only a partial, short-lived solution. Firstly, cars would still be killing people. Secondly, since criminals will never give up their guns, a completely disarmed citizenry would make criminals increasingly comfortable using their illegal weaponry. Soon the citizens would realize they better get a gun, illegal or no, to protect their families, and before long, you got Sonoran Mexico. Or Chicago.

If you have difficulty grasping that, consider this: If all Western nations adopt a uniform law banning “suicide” bomb vests, do you think that would have any effect on the number of suicide bombings?

It’s not the weapon of choice that matters. It’s the motivation that kills.

But Liberals/Progressives just can’t stand the idea of doing nothing – even when they don’t have a clue what it is they should do. So they make something up. And then champion it. And use their stranglehold over the Press to convince you that they know what they’re talking about.

That’s how we get ObamaCare. And Dodd-Frank. And Internet “regulations,” rampant Welfarism, and the four food groups (or is it five now?)   And of course, “Carbon Offsets.”

You think the average Progressive has a blanking clue what carbon they’re offsetting, or how?

But We gotta do something! Don’t we?  But why not use reason, and a bit of science (statistics) to discover what we should do?   You want to end gun violence in schools? Liberals say we must ban all guns from all schools. Conservatives say that renders them “soft targets.” Who’s right?

Here’s one way to figure it out:

Poll all voting-age students, teachers and parents/guardians at each and every school in the country, presenting them with these four options:

  1.  Ban all guns from school property, for everyone, including police
  2.  Make open-carry guns legal on school property for all trained, licensed individuals. Ban all other weapons.
  3.  Same as (2) except authorize concealed-carry for licensed individuals, so that no one knows who’s packing.
  4.  Same as (2), except only uniformed (recognizable) security personnel may carry.

Hold the votes. Then implement for each school according to the vote – a truly Democratic test. What the majority in each school wants, everybody in that school gets. You don’t like it, change schools.

Now wait ten years (or maybe just five,) and let’s see which schools have a continuing, or escalating, violence problem, and which schools seem to be death-free zones.

If the schools with zero-tolerance for firearms have the fewest deaths, then by all means, let’s have a national ban on firearms at all schools, and hold serious discussion about other stiff gun-control legislation, because obviously it’s doing some good.

But: If the only schools with no deaths are the ones with visibly-armed security, while the students in the gun-free schools have to wear Kevlar skivvies, then let’s mandate a national school-security presence, armed to the teeth and trained constantly, and Shut Up About Gun Control !!!

That’s how to begin muzzling the incessant babble about gun control. Next up: Movie theaters.


Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He sometimes wishes he could support Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies, and is none too fond of Statistics. If his writing depresses you, he recommends you visit Chip Bok’s site for a more lighthearted perspective.

Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

*Scroll down to post a comment


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments