Gun control laws, frankly, don’t work. If you would care to argue the point, I request you explain the levels of gun violence in Washington DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Mumbai and Detroit. Given the strength of the local anti-gun laws in these locations, gun violence should be nil. Somehow, however, it isn’t.
The problem, oddly enough, is that the only folks *ACTUALLY* impacted by gun control laws are law-abiding citizens, who, pretty much by definition, aren’t the problem. In fact, disarming citizens reduces them to victims, easy prey for the criminal set. Let us take the example of Colin Ferguson on Dec. 7, 1993. A Jamaican immigrant, Colin Ferguson seemed to be just another LIRR commuter, right up to the moment he drew a firearm and began firing indiscriminately, killing 6 and injuring 19 others.
The more things change, the more things stay the same…
Nearly 15 years later and halfway around the world, a very similar scenario, writ large, occurred in Mumbai. Again, if banning firearms worked, gun violence would be prevented, or so the theory goes. India has exceedingly strict law regulating private firearm ownership, which somehow didn’t prevent ten Muslim terrorists from terrorizing the city of Mumbai. This event could have been prevented, or at least ameliorated, with private handgun ownership. To quote Professor John Lott:
“The attack also illustrates what Israelis learned decades ago. — Putting more soldiers or police on the street didn’t stop terrorist’s machine gun attacks. Terrorists would either wait for the armed soldiers or police to leave the area or kill them first. Likewise, in India, the Muslim terrorists’ first targets were those in uniform (whether police or security guards).
Terrorists only stopped using machine guns to attack Israelis once citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack — and the terrorists don’t know who has them.
With mass shootings becoming more difficult, terrorists were forced to switch to a less effective strategy: bombs. Bombings are more difficult for armed citizens to stop because they can’t respond after the bomb blows up.”
This argument undercuts the specious argument put forward in the LA Times editorial today, that resisting terrorism is an “exercise in futility.” An unarmed populace are victims waiting to be victimized.