Today, at Ammoland Dave Workman has an opinion piece entitled Opinion: Op-Ed in 'The Hill' Unintentionally Illustrates Logic Vacuum of Gun Control in which he notes that there is no gun control scheme that will stop school shootings, or indeed any criminal shootings.
Two sentences in the second paragraph of an Op-Ed in The Hill about gun control failures relating to the recent trials of James and Jennifer Crumbley—parents of Michigan school killer Ethan Crumbley—perhaps best illustrate the vacuum of logic within the gun control movement, guaranteeing that whatever restrictive laws anti-gunners adopt, they will always fall short.
Writing about the passage of the Public Act of 2023 in Michigan, Prof. Kimberly Wehle, University of Baltimore School of Law, asserts, “If that law had been in place in 2021, 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley might never have attempted the shootings because his parents — despite their shortcomings — may have complied with state law. Instead, they were found criminally liable for not imposing in their own home the very restrictions on gun access that Michigan lawmakers had neglected to enact.”
“If” is often called the “biggest word in the English language.” “Might” comes in a close second, probably in a tie with “may.” The sentence illustrates just how wrong—and perhaps wrong-headed—gun control proponents are about pushing restrictive laws and regulations, expecting people most likely to violate or merely ignore the law to suddenly comply. There is no reliable evidence of that ever happening in the history of mankind, dating from the slaying of Abel by his older brother, Cain, to the present.
Long story short, regardless of the number of times it is repeated, gun control proponents refuse to accept the reality that criminals and stubborn, stupid people do not obey every gun law. Indeed, they disobey most or all of them, figuring to not get caught. Based on what she wrote and how it is written, Wehle is an intelligent person with an interesting argument. She just happens to be mistaken.
Trained as they are in the use of language, words and grammar, lawyers tend to believe that words on paper can act in real life. What they forget is that words on paper only affect real life so long as people respect those words. But criminals do not respect words, including the criminals who intend to violate the Constitution by infringing our right to keep and bear arms. As Workman points out, felons still get guns, do not buy them from FFLs because they would get caught, do not observe waiting periods, or any other law including murder. Careless people also do not observe safe storage laws. The only people who are burdened by the thousands of gun laws in the various states and the Federal government are those not likely to violate them in any case.
Gentle readers will want to read the whole piece, though they should not expect to change any minds. Despite the many gun laws on the books, gun-grabbers are sure that just one more law will finally crack the code. It comes from a misunderstanding of the purpose of laws. The real purpose is to state what is expected, and to outline society's punishments if those expectations are not met. For that, you don't need a kagillion laws detailing everything down to the gnat's nuts. The gun-grabbers are on a fool's errand if they think their ideas will prevent crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment