Here’s a twisted bit of logic for you. The best way to keep you safe is to make it more difficult for you to keep and bear arms. See, by chipping away at your ability to defend yourself, with the tools of your choosing, you will become safer.
Huh? How does that work? How does suppressing gun ownership and creating more gun-free zones make us safer, especially in the context of defending ourselves from madmen with firearms when police (good guys with guns) are often minutes away?
Well, that’s essentially what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson wants us to believe in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting that left 50 people dead (including the suspect) and 53 more wounded.
“We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security,” Johnson said in an interview on “CBS This Morning.” “We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country.”
Johnson said that denying those on the no-fly list and terrorist watchlist the right to keep and bear arms is “something that has to be addressed.”
Yet, even if lawmakers in this country placed heavy restrictions on gun ownership, terrorists would still find a way to get their hands on firearms — just as they did during the recent attacks in Paris, France, a country which effectively bans firearms.
“I thought frankly after Sandy Hook where you have schoolchildren murdered in a classroom that maybe finally this will be the tipping point and we were not able to move the needle in Congress, unfortunately,” Johnson said.
Many Americans reject gun control because we see it for what it is, nothing more than a feel-good proposition, a reactionary measure that does nothing to address the underlying cause of violence: evil men hellbent on expressing their pernicious rage through violent acts.
Evil men will always demand firearms. And where there is a will, there is a way. Through legal means or illegal means, evil men will always find a way to get their hands on weapons, especially in a country with 300 million guns. Until we live in a society that universally recognizes that the best way to stop evil men is by force, whether that be at the hand of a law enforcement officer or a responsibly armed citizen, the security of the homeland will always be less than optimal.
Pursuing more gun control in the aftermath of these tragedies accomplishes only two things. It makes feckless and shortsighted lawmakers in Washington feel as if they’ve done something to address the problem. And it creates a society with fewer armed good guys, thus weakening the safety of the public. In short, gun control as a way to combat terrorism, domestic or foreign-born, or stop mass killers is a total and complete failure.
If Secretary Johnson’s real concern is the safety of Americans, he should think long and hard before he starts beating the drum for more gun control.