Randy Alcorn: Tell walkers guns ARE a public safety issue | Opinions

It’s pretty clear now that expressions of empathy and pleas for divine intervention are no more effective in ending America’s ongoing mass shooting carnage than wishing for a four-leaf clover.

“Thoughts and prayers” is the equivalent of doing nothing, and doing nothing is exactly what the “cold-dead-my-hands” gun supporters and their industry and political enablers want.

With the record number of mass shootings already this year – averaging around one a day – gun advocates are struggling to convince an increasingly outraged, desperate and worried public that restrictions on private gunfire are a greater threat to Americans than reproducing ones. , random, can-happen-anywhere-to-anyone, flaming bloodbaths.

Nevertheless, even as the mortal danger of unfettered gun rights has become apparent, gun advocates stubbornly cling to their defensive arguments with the same stubborn tenacity as they do to their guns – which can only be taken from their cold dead hands, because of their cold dead brains and their cold dead hearts.

All of their arguments hinge on a shorthand interpretation of the Second Amendment that entirely ignores the introductory clause qualifying citizen gun ownership as a “well-regulated militia.”

That militia would be today’s National Guard, not twisted teenage miscreants wearing bulletproof vests and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms designed to inflict horrific maximum damage.

The late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren Burger, appointed by President Richard Nixon, vehemently opposed the shorthand interpretation of the Second Amendment, calling it a great fraud against the American people perpetrated by the gun lobby.

Burger argued that the full language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument conferring unfettered gun rights on citizens.

In 2008, despite Burger, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives an individual the right to own firearms unrelated to service in a well-regulated state militia.

But, even in this case, as well as in all the other Second Amendment cases it has heard, the court, while affirming the individual right to own firearms, held that this right is not unlimited.

And while many, perhaps most, gun owners agree that there should be reasonable gun regulations, gun advocates, dismissing the mounting heartbreaking evidence that restrictions are necessary for public safety, reject them all.

One of their most repeated objections to gun restrictions is that any restriction is an incremental step towards a total ban on guns. This argument must assume that the Second Amendment would be repealed or that the Supreme Court would overturn precedents asserting individual gun rights. After all, if the court can override the right to abortion, why can’t it override the right to firearms?

Why? Because it would require three-quarters of the states to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment, or the court to overturn all of its precedents asserting citizens’ gun rights, and then to somehow overturn other the Ninth and 10th Amendments to completely ban gun ownership nationwide. As if it was going to happen in any of our lives.

Another eye-roller is a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. Well, maybe, sometimes, but too often only after a good number of victims have been burger-slashed by a maniac wielding a high-powered semi-automatic rifle.

Somehow, a society in which millions of people accumulate heat, overtly or covertly, does not seem so reassuring. How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? They probably won’t wear white or black hats.

Then we have “guns don’t kill people, people do”. This light rationalization posits that mass murder is a mental health issue and would happen even without guns. Homicidal maniacs would use cars, knives, baseball bats or whatever to slaughter dozens of people at once.

A psycho throwing a Louisville Slugger into a crowd can deal a lot of damage, but not as much or as quickly and effectively as one can fire an AR-15 into a crowd.

The tools used matter. It’s easier to commit mass murder with purpose-built devices that kill large numbers of people quickly than to reuse other things to do it. Firearms don’t require close proximity to victims, and semi-automatics don’t require expert marksmanship – just point and spray hell.

And how is doing nothing to mitigate gun violence justified because other tools can be used to kill? Should we just resign ourselves to mass shootings because we can’t guarantee mass murders won’t happen with baseball bats?

People with mental illness can be found in every nation, but most advanced civilized nations that have banned or severely restricted guns not only have infinitesimal incidents of mass shootings, they also don’t have suffered from spikes in mass murder by other means.

Gun advocates will use the Chicago example to argue that gun restrictions are not reducing gun violence. Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the nation and yet some of the worst gun violence. What gun enthusiasts don’t know is that Chicago is a quick drive to adjacent Indiana where guns can be purchased more easily.

Rather, Chicago’s example supports the case for federal gun restrictions that apply nationwide. When Congress passed a 10-year ban on assault rifles, from 1994 to 2004, mass shooting deaths dropped nearly 50%. After the ban expired, those deaths skyrocketed by more than 200%.

Patriot gun supporters argue that private arsenals are necessary to deter government tyranny. This is perhaps the dumbest argument in the gunslingers’ arsenal of nonsense. If a tyrannical government comes to power, all deer guns, AR-15s, etc., in private hands will be like sniper rifles taking on the most powerful army in the world.

Rather than resorting to armed insurgencies or protracted guerrilla warfare to defend our constitutional republic, try voting instead. Participate enough in our democratic institutions to ensure that they remain viable and can uphold constitutional rights.

Before stocking up on guns and ammunition to protect freedom, consider who is currently working overtime to undermine our democratic principles, such as fair elections, the right to vote, and peaceful transfers of power.

It’s easy, friends. Because we’re stuck with a duopoly, just believe your own eyes which of the two major political parties is furiously digging into the foundations of our democratic republic — along with gun control.

So vote like your life depends on it.

It’s high time for America to grow up on gun rights and admit that current conditions are untenable, and that while gun violence can never be fully eradicated – given the 393 million guns estimated fire – there are various reasonable restrictions that can begin to significantly mitigate gun violence, starting with reinstating the ban on assault rifles.

Rather than having Americans strapping down guns every morning ready to shoot with the bad guys, or making America an armed fortress from coast to coast with security akin to the Transportation Security Administration in every public place, wouldn’t it be more convenient and safer to have reasonable restrictions on gun rights?

It is a matter of public safety. Doing nothing but thoughts and prayers invites more carnage from which no one is immune. Contact your Congress Creatures and let them know you’re done praying. It’s time for them to enact serious restrictions on gun control with tough penalties for non-compliance.

— Randy Alcorn is a political observer from Santa Barbara. Contact him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.