In the wake of another terrorist attack on an allied country, we’re doubtless going to face new calls for increased gun control, and the chorus of demands from the peanut gallery has already started; this despite the fact that the latest attack occurred in a state with gun laws stricter than Canada’s. To their credit, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has already announced that the rifles used in this shooting were illegal in California under current laws; unsurprisingly, people willing to commit mass murder didn’t seem too concerned about breaking gun laws as well.

Certainly there’s an argument to be made that if one were to somehow magically delete all guns from the continent, the terrorists would have had far less access to guns and thus the odds of shooting a large number of people would be slim, and if the actual problem was people getting shot, that might a discussion worth having. Of course, the problem is not people be shot, it’s people being injured or killed, and as it turns out, only two days later, a similar number of people were killed in a firebomb attack in Cairo that was carried out by two assailants, who’d invested a grand total of about two dollars in their weapons: a couple of bottles, a small amount of gasoline, and rags. It’s stories like these that make you realise how important safety is when it comes to situations like this. After all, the difference a set of turnstiles made by companies like daosafe manufacturing could potentially make is massive – especially when coupled with other means to prevent a gunman from entering a location freely. There’s other considerations for the average gun owner in wake of this tragedy, however. Even if you decide to look into using gun storage furniture in your home to store your gun properly, this at least shows that you are trying to make even more of an effort to try and protect you and your family from any threats.



The timing of those two attacks throws a harsh light on the futility of attempting to stop mass murders by restricting legal access to individual weapons: there’s clearly no way to prevent the use of simple incendiary devices and keeping people from manufacturing simple chemical explosives is virtually impossible as well – thankfully, so far we haven’t seen very many people motivated enough to wield explosives in a deliberate manner but the Oklahoma City bombing serves as a stark reminder that casualty rates in explosives-driven attacks could be more than ten times as high as those in San Bernadino.

Given the obvious conclusion that the problem is not actually guns, why do gun control advocates continue to pursue their objective in the name of safety?

The answer is in the expression itself: their goal is not, in fact, safety. If it were, both sides would be having a very civil discussion on the latest proposals to increase Gun Safety. That’s a very rational and intelligent discussion to have; safety itself is a fairly laudable goal, and few people know better than gun owners just how important following safety procedures can be.

But opponents of civilian gun ownership have not formed a Coalition for Gun Safety, because that implies that safety is achievable, even(!) in the presence of guns.

No, they’re not interested in gun safety. They’re interested in gun control. And the operative word is definitely control.

In the firearms world, it’s often said that while God may have made men, Sam Colt made men equal. The firearm is truly the right arm of democracy; it is the difference between a serf who lives at the whim of his lord and a free man – or woman, and let us not fail to consider that women have traditionally had even more reason than men to make use of a tool to equalize physical strength – who may contest the will of the nobility. It is no coincidence that the history of democracy runs concurrently with the development of civilian armament.

But the idea that people might be beyond the ability of others to control is very frightening to some. This is the true reason that advocates of gun control seek mass disarmament: they fear the idea of people who have the means to dispute their wishes. They foresee a utopia of their own design, and armed, independent individuals do not belong in the perfect, crime-free, yoga-and-lattes future they envision.

In a sense, this is understandable. Free societies can be frightening places; freedom can be dangerous indeed. The least dangerous form of existence would certainly involve being strapped into a straight jacket, in a padded room, with regular visits by staff to spoon tepid oatmeal and strained carrots into your mouth; the most free existence would take place in a lawless land without the slightest restriction on anyone. Those who lean one direction will never understand those who lean the other.

But the feelings of the fearful are not sufficient reason to deprive others of their rights and property.

Out of a principled interest for improving the world, however, I am going to give the gun control set a freebie: there is a way you can achieve a small percentage of your desires regarding firearms, and if you take this approach, you’ll find that firearms enthusiasts will not fight you on it: stop pushing for gun control. Do not fixate on telling others how to live, or what to own. Push instead for gun safety.

What does pushing for gun safety look like? It’s simple: teach children – and adults too, if you have the opportunity – how to be safe around firearms, because firearms are going to keep right on existing, no matter what. The goal, then, is to operate them, or even to avoid them if that’s your preference, safely.

Advocate for training in schools, so that children understand the seriousness of firearms. Teach the principles of firearms safety, beginning with the principle that all firearms must be assumed to be loaded.

No gun owner will argue, because we all recognize the inherent danger of firearms, just like we recognize the inherent dangers of cars, and farming equipment, and gasoline, and myriad other objects and substances found throughout our society, and by educating children on firearms safety, you’ll actually have the opportunity to save lives through the reduction of firearms accidents. Courses already exist, such as the services from Threatscenarios.com/, covering scenarios from home invasion to general weapons training, and even discuss other options than firearms for use to keep the conversation open.

If the goal is saving lives, the way forward is clear. Stop fighting for gun control, and start fighting for gun safety.

Unless, of course, the goal is just control.

Comments

comments