Gun control-advocates want to blame mass shootings on "too many guns," but the real problem is far too few guns and too little gun freedom. Restrictions on our Constitution's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms invite slaughter and mayhem. Hijackers and terrorists have commandeered planes because they've known guns aren't allowed on planes. In 2007 a maniac killed 32 students and hurt 17 others in a classroom at Virginia Tech, where guns are banned. That wouldn't have happened had just one student with good aim been free to use a gun. In 2011 a U.S. Congresswoman and 18 others were gunned down in a shopping plaza, over the course of minutes; the grizzly result could have been avoided or minimized had there been no legal restrictions on gun-holding in such "public areas," restrictions that were well known to that perpetrator, too. Last month a crazed shooter slaughtered 12 and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; he knew full well that the patrons were disarmed, since state law required it. In Oak Creek, Wisconsin this week a neo-Nazi religious whacko shot and killed 6 people and wounded 4 others at a Sikh temple, where no other guns were present because it was a "place of peace" – that is, a place the shooter knew was completely disarmed.
Here's the perversity of the gun-controllers: they've convinced politicians and law enforcement officials that public areas are especially prone to gun violence, and have pushed for onerous bans and restrictions on gun use in such areas; but that means they themselves are accessories to such crimes, because they've actively encouraged government to ban or restrict our basic civil right to self-defense; it means they've goaded stray crazies into publicly slaughtering people with impunity. Self-defense is a crucial right; it requires gun-toting and full use not only in our homes and on our property but also (and especially) in public. How often do gun-wielding policemen actually prevent or stop violent crime? Almost never. They are not "crime-stoppers" but note-takers who arrive at a scene after the fact to gather testimony on what's called an "alleged" crime, for later investigation and adjudication – which is, obviously, too late for the murdered and maimed.
To his great credit, Professor John Lott is a rare defender of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – a courageous defender of our right to a fully-armed self-defense. Thus he's been reviled by gun control-freaks and other accessories to public slaughter. Lott is the author of a great book – More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (2010) – a deeply-researched effort that taps vast databases on gun ownership and use, anti-gun laws, and crime statistics globally; Lott shows unequivocally that more guns and freer use of them ultimately entail far less crime. No one has refuted Lott's book, which emerged in a first edition in 1998. New data since then have only corroborated Lott's initial findings, yet gun-controllers today are more powerful and influential than ever, which means public slaughters will only likely persist.
Notably, gun sales in Colorado jumped by 41% in the days after the movie theater slaughter last month, but that did not mean those guns could actually be used in movie theaters – or in many other public venues. The legal prohibition is the real problem here – and the injustice must be terminated immediately. The evidence is overwhelming now: no one any longer can claim, in candor, that the gun-controllers are "pacific," "peace-loving," or "well-meaning." In truth they are avowed enemies of a key civil right and abject abettors of evil.