The ongoing gun control debate in the United States has denigrated into pure stupidity. It doesn’t matter whether you are for gun rights or for more gun control because Pensacola points out the utter stupidity of both sides of the argument.
As I have written previously, it is too late to try to control guns in the United States because the Genie is out of the bag. There are simply too many guns on the streets already. Unless the government has the backbone to take guns away from people, no amount of legislation will fix the problem.
But Pensacola delivers two very important things about gun control that all need to understand. As a reminder, a Saudi immigrant taking military classes recently killed three U.S. military personnel on the U.S. military base where he was taking military classes.
Keeping Guns Out of People’s Hands Does Not Work
Amazingly in the United States, military bases, where guns are the most important instrument for the military missions they support, soldiers are prohibited from having guns. These are individuals that presumably are trained on how to use guns. These are individuals subject to close supervision in an environment that strictly controls their activities.
Yet, they cannot have guns to protect themselves.
Let that sink in for a moment. People tasked with killing other people cannot have guns to protect themselves.
However, the most important thing to point out is that keeping guns out of people’s hands does not end the gun violence.
Pensacola has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
A gun was used to kill three gun-trained individuals because they were prohibited from having guns.
Gun Control Laws Do Not Work
One would think that immigrants to the United States would be the less likely type of person to be able to buy guns under the current laws. This would especially be true of temporary immigrants visiting the United States.
Yet, Mohammed Alshamrani legally purchased a gun that he used to kill servicemen on a U.S. military installation. This after numerous calls for more stringent gun control laws, some of which have been enacted after recent mass shootings.
If there are loopholes in the current laws that allow immigrants temporarily in the United State to buy guns, what makes anyone believe that new gun laws in the books will change the killings of innocent people?
There are gun law advocates that will argue that it is precisely the loopholes that they are trying to correct. But the problem in the United States is that laws are enacted to correct a perceived problem and at the same time, or immediately after, another law is enacted to “correct” a problem with the law.
A perfect example of this – besides the gun loopholes – are the laws on marihuana as they stand now.
Marihuana laws in the United States are in contradiction with each other.
Federal law prohibits marihuana in almost all instances. Anyone in the United States can be federally arrested and prosecuted for marihuana. Yet, in many jurisdictions, marihuana is perfectly legal.
In other words, there are two sets of laws on the book today that contradict each other.
Laws in the United States are a patchwork of special interests often contradicting each other or placing “loopholes” to allow one special interest an exception to the law.
Therein lies the most fundamental problem with gun control, no law will stop the gun violence because loopholes will keep guns in the hands of the people. Additionally, gun safe zones are ineffective as demonstrated by the Pensacola killings.
If you really want to control gun violence go after the consumable. That would be the bullets. Immediately cease selling 2.33 and 5.16 ammunition today and, presto, the “assault-type guns” are rendered useless. (Yes, I am aware that people can make their own bullets, but how likely are opportunity killers going to make their own bullets?)
A simple solution no one talks about because it does not fit the narrative each side argues.