Korwin's article in today's Townhall is entitled If only gun control worked, every pro-gun group wishes it did. The difference between pro-gun groups who wish that gun control worked, and gun grabbers who insist that we need still more, is that the pro-gun groups know that laws do not keep criminals from being armed, and committing crimes with those arms.
Gun control won’t disarm the Syrian rebels. Or the Syrian Army. It can’t disarm the Russians, or the Kurds, or any of the combatants in the Middle East. If only gun control (and explosives-control laws!) could disarm the European jihadis, currently under some of the strictest gun- and crime-control laws in the civilized world. That way, the murderous factions over there could stop murdering everyone. But it just doesn’t work, doggone it.
This is the great flaw with law. It doesn’t work. It gives you legal options after the action, and it deters good people, sometimes, but it doesn’t do much other good. Gun control deters no one intent on evil acts. Only some of us understand this unfortunately. If laws against armed bank robbery worked, we’d have no armed bank robbers, right?Furthermore, what every police officer, security guard, body guard, soldier, or civilian carrier knows is that when you need your gun is unknowable, but that there is no substitute for a gun. Crimes do not happen as in the movies. Movie directors have the luxury of choreographing the action to make the hero look good. In real life it is much more confusing, and the criminals almost always have the upper hand.
Korwin points to the 20,000 laws already on the books controlling who and how guns can be obtained, carried, and used legally in this country. He, correctly, states that these many laws are already not doing anything to stop the criminals among us. Indeed, if they were better enforced, that might do something, but they are not enforced.
The worst part—new gun laws being proposed don’t even confront crime. They don’t have to, because the crimes are already outlawed. But I repeat myself. The new laws make crimes out of things that aren’t crime—by banning legal activity Americans do every day. Look at gun-transfer laws, pitched as more background checks* for example, the current rallying cry of more-gun-law proponents.
It’s already illegal for criminals to transfer guns, buy guns, have guns, giveaway guns, get guns, anything. More background checks will increasingly burden the innocent, but it won’t disarm or stop criminals who are already armed. Enhanced enforcement and arrests will have that desired effect, but these aren’t proposed.** Armed criminals are armed now despite all the laws banning it already. You do understand that, don’t you? Such questions are mysteriously not posed to gun-control advocates by the media. Instead, reporters virtually cheerlead and campaign for new laws that will incrementally disarm or subarm the public.
It’s already illegal for criminals to transfer guns, buy guns, have guns, giveaway guns, get guns, anything. More background checks will increasingly burden the innocent, but it won’t disarm or stop criminals who are already armed. Enhanced enforcement and arrests will have that desired effect, but these aren’t proposed.** Armed criminals are armed now despite all the laws banning it already. You do understand that, don’t you? Such questions are mysteriously not posed to gun-control advocates by the media. Instead, reporters virtually cheerlead and campaign for new laws that will incrementally disarm or subarm the public.Korwin will not say it, but I will. The reason the press does not ask the question is a combination of ignorance, and the certainty that the public is out there killing off people at rates that would depopulate the country if left unchecked. That belief comes from the many news reports coming into their newsrooms about shootings every day. What they don't see, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of people DID NOT shoot anyone today, or ever. The other thing not considered is that the overwhelming majority of these shootings are related to criminal activity, as as said before, criminals will remain armed no matter what the law says.
A similar bias exists with respect to motorcycles. Because of the criminal motorcycle gangs, most drivers view all motorcyclists with a certain amount of suspicion. The fact that the overwhelming bulk of motorcyclists are hardworking, salt of the earth types is never considered. Doctors are particularly down on both motorcycles and guns, because they often have to treat the victims of gun violence and motorcycle accidents. Sure enough, when journalists talk to doctors, their prejudice is confirmed.
The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from having a monopoly of force. As Korwin notes, whenever gun control laws are written, the government seems to always exclude itself. So, police officers, security guards and body guards, agents of every kind, and various officials all have access to items that you, the citizen do not. Would the master of a great house allow his servants to tell him that they may be armed, but he can not? In point of fact, the master is more likely to be armed himself, and forbid his servants to be armed except under special circumstances. In case you do not know, the citizen in this analogy is the master, and the government is supposed to be his servant. Too many of us have somehow forgotten this relationship.
The truth is that prosecutors and the police (our servants, remember?) have the tools to put away the criminals among us if they would use them. The fact is that the Left left the bounds of sanity on the issue long ago, Their real goal, from the beginning, has been to disarm you and me, and turn the tables on the master servant relationship. They have largely succeeded.