Whether it’s Parkland, Las Vegas, or as long ago as Columbine, mass shootings always open a discussion about gun control and restrictions. Should they? Probably not, as gun restrictions are more oriented toward domestic violence than rare occurrences of mass shootings.
Despite this, the tendency of gun control legislation to top the docket every time there is a publicized “mass shooting”, many may assume that there is a correlation between the two. Let’s take a look at whether or not that’s true.
Statistically speaking, gun sales rise after a mass shooting makes national headlines. The reasons are debatable. Some people realize the need to defend themselves, others are afraid new legislation in response to the shooting may prevent them from buying a gun. Still, others want to be prepared in case they should be a first responder or witness to a similar situation.
Depending on the source, polling data suggests the common reason provided for buying a new gun after a recent shooting is that people realize they need a gun for self defense, or they’re afraid the following discussion might end their ability to buy a gun they always wanted but never had a reason to buy.
Anyone who follows the news knows there is going to be a gun control discussion after a mass shooting. The discussion is well warranted — nobody wants another shooting, not in a school nor in an area known for violent criminal activity. Usually, the discussion centers on the most extreme solutions, neither of which is a good idea, in which either everyone carries a gun or nobody is allowed to. Common sense typically follows in which local areas are allowed to determine how they want guns to be permitted in neighborhoods without taking away rights from people who are responsible gun owners.
Responsible gun owners have to remain vigilant toward their right to maintain their rights. Fortunately, there are enough gun advocacy groups to assure there won’t be a confiscation or any major change in the laws concerning gun ownership in the near future. More concerning are subtle changes which set precedents for future laws. Simple concepts such as, “a bolt-action rifle is sufficient to hunt deer” becomes a reason to ban guns which were intended for home defense while ignoring the need for self defense by deflecting to the needs of hunters.
Circular logic tends to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Theoretically, deer can be hunted with a bow, and your home can be defended by your awesome ninjitsu skills. Realistically, there is a reason gun ownership was included in the Constitution as a basic right for American citizens. Gun rights aren’t going away, but it is important to express your opinion as a responsible gun owner to maintain those rights rather than letting others take them away.
~ Ready to Fire News