Our daily experience with mass shootings brings repeated futile discussions about what to do. The majority of Americans favor measures such as stricter background checks, but our legislatures seem to be ruled by the gun lobby, refusing to take meaningful action.
“Laws won’t prevent shootings!” they say. That’s because we only pass laws that eliminate illegal behavior and activity.
Ooops! Do laws prevent the breaking of law? We pass laws to define the rules that bring some semblance of order to society. The suggestion that we shouldn’t pass laws that eliminate a crime is nonsense.
Will gun laws prevent mass shootings? It is preposterous to even suggest that. Will they affect the number of mass shootings? There is still serious debate regarding the assault rifle ban of 1994. Did it reduce the number of gun deaths? The fact-checking website Politifact rates that position as only half true. The reason? “It is pretty much impossible to prove cause and effect.”
The point is that we enact laws to define the rules of society. They may or may not prevent law breaking. Should Americans be allowed to own firearms? It seems most Americans are convinced we should. The Second Amendment does not protect indiscriminate weapons, and they may be regulated, including outright prohibition.
The Supreme Court has affirmed this fact repeatedly. As Justice Anton Scalia stated, the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The suggestion that laws won’t prevent mass shootings is a red herring. There seems to be some indication that an assault rifle ban may prove effective. Regardless, it would serve the purpose and intent of all laws; that is, to define the rules that bring some semblance of order to society. The status quo is anything but that. Do something!
Bill Forbes, Bountiful