Connect with us

Guns and Crime

To stop mass shootings, we need looser gun laws, not stricter

Published

on

To stop mass shootings we need looser gun laws not stricter

Gun ownership advocates often point to the “Swiss model” as an example of how arming more people is the best way to prevent gun violence. This is partially true, though gun rights activists may want to familiarize themselves with all of the gun laws before jumping on the Swiss bandwagon. They have gun registrations, background checks controlled by local gun shops, and required military service to some extent, issues that would not abide by the 2nd Amendment.

Nevertheless, it’s true that a country with a population close in percentages to the United States as far as gun ownership is concerned has only had one mass shooting since the turn of the century. It’s also true that they encourage gun ownership and are adamant about making sure their citizens are trained to properly use firearms before they graduate from high school. This is a strong policy that we should employ in the United States. Instead of fearing guns, we need to embrace them.

One thing being propped up by the press following the Dayton shooting is that law enforcement was able to take down the shooter in less than 60 seconds. But this could lead us to believe there’s a need to have law enforcement generally everywhere that people gather in large numbers, a prospect that is both logistically impossible and would increase the likelihood of the growth of the police state in America. But one important takeaway here is that having someone in the crowd with a firearm likely prevented countless more deaths. One could even argue that had the shooter known someone with a firearm and the training to use it was within a minute of reaching him, he might have thought twice about going on his murderous rampage.

Many on the left will read this headline and instantly condemn it as false. They’ll ignore the conspicuous reality that most mass shootings happen where guns are prohibited. They’ll also ignore the very blatant truth that a “good guy with a gun” has prevented by far more mass shootings than any gun-free zones. It doesn’t get much press attention when someone wants to shoot people and gets stopped by a citizen or law enforcement officer before they’re able to carry out their act of terrorism. Mainstream media favors successful mass shootings over thwarted ones when writing their headlines.

But here’s the unambiguous reality: If more Americans were armed and carrying their firearms wherever they went, the number of mass shootings would go down. The facts speak for themselves. Of the 27 mass shootings with over 10 casualties in modern American history, none of them happened in any of the nine states with the loosest gun laws. Zero.

Open-carry and concealed-carry laws allow the people to protect themselves. They dissuade potential mass shooters from enacting their heinous plans. Fears that an armed population will harm themselves or others, or get in the way of law enforcement, are irrational as there are no examples of these hypothetical problems actually ever occurring.

If there are any laws that need to be tightened, it’s in the way gun laws are prosecuted. While I’m completely against new or revamped gun laws that take away from our 2nd Amendment rights, I’m all in favor of making many of the laws currently on the books carry harsher penalties. As Dana Loesch noted regarding the El Paso shooter:

The facts are unambiguous. There have been zero mass shootings in the nine states with the loosest gun laws. Mass shooters are mentally ill cowards. They go where the know the people won’t be armed, period.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement


Facebook

Trending