With the Bruen decision, a whole lot of people think the days of oppressive gun control are all but over. After all, the decision made some things very clear, particularly with regard to the text and history standard laid out.
One will be hard-pressed to find gun control laws that fit within that standard.
Yet a Supreme Court decision doesn’t change people. Those who wanted gun control before still do, and that’s a huge issue. Especially since, as John Lott notes in a recent column, they treat law-abiding gun owners are mass murderers in the making.
In celebration of New York’s new gun control law that took effect Sept. 1, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul claimed: “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”
At the same press conference, New York City Mayor Eric Adams warned that more concealed carry permits might lead to an increase in violence at Times Square, even though Times Square remains a gun-free zone for permit holders.
This is a typical response from Democrats. After each mass public shooting, Democratic elected officials push for more gun control. They ignore examples, even those that generated significant public attention, in which armed bystanders saved many lives. They also disregard a grim aspect of such crimes: Most mass shooters want to commit suicide in a way that will gain the most media coverage. The more people they kill, the more coverage they will get.
Given how infrequently the news media covers defensive gun uses, it isn’t surprising that Hochul believes that defensive gun uses are rare. But survey estimates show on average that Americans use guns defensively about 2 million times a year. According to academic estimates, defensive gun uses – including instances when guns are simply shown to deter a crime – are four to five times more common than gun crimes.
Of course, Lott is absolutely correct here.
However, more than that, their calls for gun control essentially say that they think the average law-abiding gun owner is a potential mass shooter. Their calls for restrictions in places like Times Square aren’t calls that will keep killers from carrying. Those inclined to murder people in job lots aren’t exactly the kind of folks who are going to worry about a weapons charge.
Restricting the law-abiding does nothing to stop these crazed individuals. Anyone with any sense should be able to see the flaw in the plan here, yet that doesn’t seem to come up. Why?
The answer seems to be that they cannot discern us from the villains. They can’t tell the difference between a law-abiding gun owner who wants to lawfully carry his firearm for self-defense and those who want to slaughter the innocent.
We are not those people. We will never become those people.
Unfortunately, with every restriction on what law-abiding people can do with a firearm, lawmakers make it clear that they cannot tell the difference.