Preying on the Weak and Defenseless

William Phillips, age 60, murdered David Beverly and then took his own life today at NASA in Houston (see story). Although this is a tragic story, the shooting did not seem to have any connection to the 4-20 infamy of Columbine or Hitler. Instead, it would seem that Phillips was driven by a dispute he’d had with Beverly and nothing more. Perhaps he was emboldened by the murderer Cho and the excessive coverage that occurred, but we may never know.

Aside from this shooting we seem to have emerged from the day relatively unscathed. No neo-nazi, demented killers with long trench coats or strange multimedia presentations came out to murder today. That’s a relief.

Now that we’ve had some time to take in the events of the past few days, it’s time, I think, to take a serious look at gun laws. What do I mean by this? Consider the following. Why was Cho successful? How did the two Columbine boys carry out those killings? Wasn’t it all because they were able to get their hands on the guns they needed to carry their plans out?

No, the accessibility to the firearms is not what gave them their leverage. What? What do you mean? Of course they could not have done what they did without the weapons to do it with. If we take guns out of the equation then they have no power, right? Wrong. They were successful because the people they were attacking could not defend themselves!

Think about it. If an individual wants to go on a killing spree and the people he wants to kill are all armed with guns, do you think he’ll be very successful? First, he might think twice about getting himself killed, because that would quickly be ensured if he started shooting at people with guns. Second, because he would be killed quickly once he’d started shooting, the number of lives lost would be much lower.

Look at this in a different light. During the Cold War neither the U.S. or the Soviet Union wanted to fire a nuke on the other. Why? Because of a little thing called mutually assured destruction. If the Soviet Union fired on us, we would fire on them. In the end both sides would lose. This kept war from breaking out.

Now, bring this back to the individual level, that concept of assured death can act as a major deterrent for idiots like this Cho lunatic. Giving people guns means limiting the power of the criminals that prey on the weak and defenseless. Cowardly criminals buy guns and use them because nobody else has them. It’s their way of cheating in a game with ridiculous rules.

Consider the fact that these criminals are just that: criminals. Criminals are all about breaking laws. What makes you think a criminal is going to abide by a “no gun” law? Criminals still find guns, but the law abiding innocents will not have guns because it’s against the law! If you remove guns completely, you’ve rendered innocent people defenseless against one of these criminals who’s obtained a gun illegally.

Criminals still find guns, but the law abiding innocents will not have guns because it’s against the law!

So, what does this mean? It means that gun control needs to be exercised by the individuals carrying the guns, not by the government. If that right were fully restored to us, violent crimes would decrease. Put the power back into the hands of the people and make it more difficult for criminals to gain an upper hand. That is our solution.