The term "gun control" has been muddled. Does it mean legislation aimed at preventing certain individuals from possessing certain types of firearms? Or does it mean the act of preventing certain individuals from possessing certain firearms? There is a huge difference. The former is a goal. The latter is an achievement.
Gun control legislation can only be viewed as a viable approach if we can reasonably expect such laws to have their intended effect, and if that intended effect serves some purpose. The intended effect is to disarm criminals. The purpose is to improve public safety. Gun control for its own sake was not the original purpose behind the movement. It is the purpose today.
The popular gun control activist movement seeks legislation that casts too wide of a net. This causes some serious problems. Banning the possession of firearms for all residents because of the foolishness of a small minority of residents is generally not appreciated by the law abiding folks. It is also highly doubtful that it has the intended effect of disarming the criminals. I live in DC and my firearms are locked in a case in my parent's basement 500 miles away because of our "gun control" laws. The laws compel me to disarm, but not the criminals. That is why there is still a huge problem in DC with gun-related (aka, armed criminal-related) crimes.
The single-minded focus on a legislative approach to abridge the rights of all gun owners only succeeds in polarizing the debate into gun owners' rights versus legislative activism. Most people do not commit gun crimes, so when their right to own a firearm is infringed upon because some activists had a bright idea, they predictably get defensive. The obvious target of their ire is the activist movement that seeks to disarm them. In other words, the gun control activists have created political opposition for no good reason, rather than working towards a shared goal of improving public safety. I see no way for these two factions to ever get to the point of working together to disarm criminals unless the activists make a good faith concession by dropping their attempts to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. So long as the gun control through legislation movement seeks to cast too wide of a net to catch a small group of deviants with a policy of highly dubious merit, the issue is destined to be a non-starter.
The gun control activists have lost focus on their reason for being. Gun control began as an idea for how to improve public safety. The inherent flaw of disarming entire locales rather than targeting criminals caused a backlash. Rather than recognize this obvious, glaring error and changing course, groupthink took hold of the movement. Now it is a fellowship of determined activists who seek a goal for its own sake, simply because their opponents are their political enemies. Will legislation aimed at banning ownership of firearms reduce crime? Probably not. But does anyone even care anymore? Probably not.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks