Gun-control activists ignore what a sixth sense tells us

As humans evolved, intelligence enabled them to grab top spot on the food chain. Despite having done so, we lack special sensitivities some animals have developed over the years to survive. Evolution has given birds, discerning air pressure changes ahead of storms, the instinct to seek safety; sharks, sensing water pressure changes ahead of hurricanes, to dive deeper to avoid surface impact; and wild animals, sensing an inbound tsunami, to seek refuge further inland.

Though recognizing such sensitivities within the animal kingdom, mankind seems to ignore a sixth-sense similarity to discern the place a mass shooter will most likely select as a “killing field” – by an overwhelming margin. Because we ignore this, we foolishly create the very environment the shooter finds most inviting.

Just like Ivory soap guarantees its product is 99.44% pure, there is an almost equally high guarantee as to the location a shooter, hellbent on committing mass murder, will choose. In fact, it is with 97.8% certainty, the location selected will be one designated as a “gun-free zone.” The obvious reason is the desire to commit the crime, devoid of any risk of deadly interference. Yet anti-gun activists lack a sixth sense recognizing that, to a shooter, a gun-free zone is a clear welcome sign.

By creating gun-free zones, we fail to sensitize ourselves to the fact the vast majority of gun owners, again by an overwhelming margin, are safety conscious, responsible individuals lacking any sinister intent to use such a weapon. Yet gun owners, because they are law-abiding, will disarm before entering into such a zone, ironically allowing themselves to become potential victims should they enter the wrong gun-free zone at the wrong time.

Just like a sign on a bank door reading “Our security guards are unarmed” would drastically increase the likelihood such an institution would experience a robbery, the same is true of buildings with signs proclaiming “This is a gun free zone.”

Potential mass shooters must be left guessing whether anyone inside a targeted building is armed.

The historical gap time between the first access to repeat-fire guns and the first mass shooting should also trigger a sixth sense that users traditionally use such weapons safely.

While guns have been a part of our history since the Revolutionary War, multi-shot assault weapons, developed as early as 1791, were unavailable to the U.S. military and civilian population until the early 19th century. Thus, the capability to commit mass shootings – defined by the FBI as the killing, by one shooter, of four or more victims, not including the killer, within a short period of time – has existed for over two centuries. Credited with the first mass shooting in U.S. history involving victims unrelated to the shooter was Howard Unruh, 28, in 1949. His 12-minute “Walk of Death” killing spree through his neighborhood claimed 13 victims, including three children.

As it took over a century and a half for such a weapon to be involved in a mass shooting, logic dictates the obvious – guns lack evil intent. However, the June 29 shooting of a young mother, pushing her baby in a stroller when she was shot point-blank from behind, has been outrageously blamed on the “over-proliferation of guns.”

Common sense dictates that the evolution of repeat-fire guns as a mass killing tool is linked to the user’s evil intent alone. Thus, seeking to restrict access to these weapons despite their lengthy peaceful history is not the proper tact to take in addressing the issue today. Yet liberals not only seek to do so but also to hold gun manufacturers legally liable when mass shootings involve their products.

This raises an interesting question.

The first murder, according to the Bible, involved the son of Adam and Eve – Cain – who killed his brother Abel in a jealous rage. While there is some debate over the weapon used, it is believed to have been a knife-like object. Therefore, in an anti-gun activist’s ideal world where guns have been totally eliminated, causing mass killers to resort to Cain’s weapon of choice, would anti-gun advocates then seek to hold knife manufacturers responsible for the deaths of such victims? Vehicles too have been used as a weapon of choice to inflict mass casualties, so, here again, is legal liability to be imposed upon automobile manufacturers to hold them responsible?

We are faced with an inconvenient truth. Whether it is a gun, a knife, a vehicle, etc., none becomes a mass casualty weapon absent the evil intent of the person wielding it. Accordingly, the potential to make any object a murder weapon in a mass killing demonstrates the futility in seeking to address mass shootings by infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, as Democrats are now attempting to do – whether banning a specific weapon type, like the AR-15, or making gun ownership more strenuous.

A study by George Mason University reveals that states with fewer gun control laws and more gun owners do not trigger higher murder rates than states with more gun control laws and fewer gun owners. In fact, the study reveals just the opposite, with the “poster child” city for such higher murder rates being Chicago. Strict gun laws have resulted in most such murders obviously being committed by what our sixth sense should tell us – shooters wielding illegally obtained guns.

Another argument liberals raise is that concealed carry threatens public safety and that people do not really need firearms. They suggest gun owners are actually more at risk having firearms in their residences and that gun ownership results in more murders.

We need only look at what happened the evening of July 3 in New York City to undermine this argument. As a holiday gathering was taking place, two men began shooting at the crowd. Fortunately, a hero – an off-duty corrections officer who was able to pull out his concealed weapon – was present, preventing mass casualties while wounding both attackers.

Our sixth sense should therefore tell us that people looking to do others harm will always seek out and find the means for doing so, creating the need for responsibly trained and armed citizens who, hopefully, are in the right place at the right time to protect the public. Such heroes should also cause evildoers to think twice about the possibility armed protectors might be out there.

Until we start tuning into our sixth sense, mass shootings will remain a sad reality of life.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts