Gun Control Kills: 2 Bad Gun Laws Exposed
Remember these the next time a gun-banner says, “If it only saves one life…”
Speaking that phrase–“if it only saves one life, won’t it be worth it?”–is quite possibly the best way to give me a pulsing forehead vein, because the fact of the matter is that bad gun laws kill good people. They don’t affect criminals, of course, given that ignoring laws is sort of the definition of “criminal.” But law-abiding citizens who take care to obey laws, even ones they don’t agree with, are disproportionately affected every time the gun banners manage to squeeze out a new hot, steamy pile of gun control. The proof is everywhere, but this week I’d like to focus on two very recent stories featuring two armed citizens who defended their lives against criminal attack…and on the “sensible gun control” laws that would have prevented them from doing so.
1. The “safe storage” law
The thing about so-called “safe storage” laws is that, on their surface and to the uninformed, they sound pretty good. After all, many if not most of us keep our guns in a safe when not in use, if only to deter potential burglars. It gets tricky, however, when the government starts trying to mandate precisely how you, the individual gun owner, do that. Although “safe storage” laws differ from state to state in those states that have them, there tend to be some universal themes. First, the gun owner is generally asked to keep the guns stored unloaded. Second, the gun owner is usually asked to keep the guns stored in a locking safe. Up until fairly recently, those few residents of Washington, D.C. who legally owned long guns were required to keep the gun and its ammunition in separate rooms. These requirements may or may not prevent unauthorized access to the guns in question…but they definitely prevent a homeowner from getting their gun in firing condition quickly.
Consider this tale out of San Diego, California. By California standards, it’s a fairly conservative city…but that didn’t stop the city from passing a “safe storage” law of its own. That law hadn’t yet gone into effect when a home invader broke into a San Diego residence on July 16 and began stabbing the homeowner. His adult son retrieved a gun and shot the intruder, mortally wounding him. The homeowner was gravely injured himself, with multiple stab wounds to the upper body, but he’s expected to survive.
But what if the man’s son had been forced to go unlock a safe, load the gun, and then go to defend his parent? How many more stab wounds would his father have incurred, and how much more blood would he have lost? And if the law I mentioned earlier had gone into effect and the son had simply decided to ignore it, he’d have had the chance to save his dad…only to face charges himself. The good news? In that article I linked, it’s clear that this case is causing San Diego citizens to question the wisdom of their new law.
2. The “21 to purchase” law
This brand of gun law has been around for quite a while, but previously, most states that had it only applied it to handguns. Law-abiding adults under the age of 21 could, at least, still purchase a long gun. However, the aftermath of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas mass shooting revived the popularity of this law…and, in much the same way that the “21 to purchase” law changed how young people buy alcohol back in the 1980s, this one seems to have built up a lot of momentum.
Gun banners have always seen the legal age to purchase as low-hanging fruit, for obvious reasons: The three-year swath affected is relatively small, and populated largely by people who don’t exercise their right to vote as much as they should. The argument that an 18-year-old can be compelled to go and fight a war (the draft hasn’t been used in decades, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be brought back); that an 18-year-old can legally get married; that an 18-year-old can sign contracts and own real estate…doesn’t seem to cut much ice with anti-gunners.
That’s why you should know about this July 17 article. This one doesn’t feature a homeowner–this is about an attempted carjacking. The car’s owner, a 19-year-old, was gassing up his vehicle when he was approached by a knife-wielding mugger who demanded his car. The young adult grabbed his handgun and fatally shot the mugger. What if he hadn’t been allowed to keep and bear that pistol? Chances are quite good that he would have been stabbed and robbed.
Guns save lives. Gun control kills. Keep your eyes on the news, and you’ll see the evidence every day.
“If only one life is saved” Is the anti-gun response every time they try to pass some new law that has nothing to do with lowering deaths by firearms. Every time a law is passed limiting access to firearms makes it easier for the home invaders,carjackers,rapists,murders basicly every piece of scum on our plant! Plus if you listen to the media you would think there are gun battles everywhere all the time because don’t forget” if it bleeds it leads”! Over & Over 24/7 BUT,even when Obama ordered the CDC to do a study on so called GUN VIOLENCE he didn’t get the answers he had hoped for. After constantly hearing all the lies on the nighty news one would think good people are getting shot to death on every street corner but the CDC’s report showed just the opposite, where 500,000 to 3 million times a year a firearm is used to save lives! “If only one life is saved” How about thousands or millions? Support our second amendment & truly save lives – lots of lives, not just one!
““if it only saves one life, won’t it be worth it?”” As with the writer of the article, this produces synapses firing off that I haven’t used in years! It has always been the siren song of any/all anti-gun folk. My ONLY response has been: “If it just saves one life….” we would all be naked and eating with our fingers!
The first man died shortly after another discovered the job could be done with a rock or club! There will be NO NIRVANA in this ‘fallen’ world. Your first requirement, whether you accept it or not, is to STAY ALIVE until help arrives. My personal credo says: I will obey no man-made law that would deny me my “God Given Right” to self-defense of myself or mine, by ANY appropriate means, ANYWHERE! That dastardly 2d Amendment is appreciated, but NOT required….
Surrendering a right is plain stupid because it would take a war to get it back. Being in favor of gun control and the systematic killing of viable babies requires the label of HYPOCRITE!!!Several people have paraphrased this idea, “Those who surrender a right and freedom to gain ephemerial safety neither get or deserve either. Those who suggest surrendering freedom to save one life are VERY dangerous and should be carefully watched. And then asked about abortion and traffic accidents.
It is all about control and dependency……….The socialist left doesn’t want people to do for themselves, they want people they can control!
Exactly right.
You are so right. That’s exactly what Hitler, Stalin and every bloodthirsty dictator has done throughout history. Remove the means of defending one’s self from criminals and out of control governments.
The criminal element WILL NOT RESPECT ANY GUN CONTROL LAWS otherwise they wouldn’t be criminals.
Why not turn the argument around – “What if gun rights save one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?”
I agree with the “what if” of the first story, and disagree with the “what if” of the second. Probably robbed, but I find it hard to accept that I’d be able to shoot a robber it they’ve already approached me with a knife. Thank you for these stories, and your support of our rights.
That is why you train. Keep your head on a swivel be aware of your surroundings practice drawing from your holster practice retention shooting. If you don’t do those things even if you carry a firearm you are correct. If you practice and are aware of your surroundings you won’t be surprised. Live your life in condition yellow. If you don’t know what that is look it up.
“….hard to accept I’d be able to shoot a robber if they’ve already approached me with a knife….” You should have, as ‘one of’ your TRAINING goals to be able to put two rounds on target, from concealment, @15 feet, in <2 seconds – and faster is always better! I'm oldt, undt slow, but I can name that song in an average time of 1.5 sec! You do address the issue with our community of Bad Guys. They are NOT interested in standing stationary at some given target distance of 21 feet, or whatever, They want to appear at your elbow before letting you in on 'their game!'
Here is an excellent example, especially useful for women: https://t.co/q60F7c0yAP
https://twitter.com/Firewagon01/status/1111151554990616578?s=17
Ever notice when the predator class globalists don’ t like a gun or an accessory there is a shooting to demonize it via the media then the screams for a ban come. We all are being played for fools and sadly some of the sheeple will never get it. THE BATFE MUST BE DISSOLVED.
When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw.
Already am, as I am armed 24/7 anywhere, anytime, I am NOT patted down, run through some metal detector to disarm me! That includes ANY/ALL “Gun Free Zones.”
There’s a lot of talk about separating the country geographically between “left and right”. Id think it better to separate it between pro 2A and anti gun. Practically the same thing but more specific. How long before the first lefty gets shot by an armed criminal lurking in their midst taking advantage of their defenselessness?
We all need to put out signs in our yards giving addresses of those who oppose legal and responsible firearms ownership and use and have it also state that we will not protect them should their home get invaded.
Most anti-gun people are emotional and ignorant of facts!
Statesman Patriot, THAT IS A GREAT IDEA! Let’s give these morons a taste of their own medicine! Let’s see what they think about having their addresses published, especially those in the news media.