Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt on Sunday called for lawmakers to end gun-free zones at schools instead of “wasting out time” with the “false security” of universal background checks. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told host Chris Wallace that the argument that background checks wouldn’t help stop mass shootings was “absolutely wrong.”…. Pratt, however, said that gun safety advocates were “avoiding the reality that we have been moving in the direction that somehow self defense is not valid, that we can somehow protect ourselves by this background check idea.”…. Pratt, however, said that gun safety advocates were “avoiding the reality that we have been moving in the direction that somehow self defense is not valid, that we can somehow protect ourselves by this background check idea.”
In the debate sparked by the Sandy Hook massacre, it would be difficult to find an idea more despicable and monstrous than Pratt’s idea of eliminating background checks and gun-free zones. The idea that the only way to defeat violence is with yet more violence and that we should be striving to arm every decent person is a prescription for disaster writ large. Pratt may live in a world where firing a weapon in self-defense couldn’t possibly have any adverse consequences, but the reality isn’t nearly so simple or risk-free.
Who’s going to train the millions who, under Pratt’s regime, will now be “empowered” to defend themselves? Is Pratt assuming that, when faced with a life-or-death situation, an armed American will of course react appropriately and take down the “bad guy?” What about situations in which the bad guy is not so easily identified? Will we then have people panicking and firing blindly in all directions in the hope that they’ll hit the “bad guy?” Does Pratt believe that no “good guys” will be hit by rounds fired by inexperienced and undisciplined shooters? Or is he simply choosing to ignore that inconvenient truth?
If the “situation” is in an enclosed space and a “good guy” with a gun begins firing at a “bad guy,” the rounds fired aren’t going to magically vanish if the miss the “bad guy.” Bullets don’t respect notions of “good” or “evil;” they respect only physics and geometry and will ricochet off anything and everything until their energy has been expended. Very often that means coming to rest in the body of an unintended target. That Pratt manages to ignore this inconvenient truth is evidence of how little he cares for the human aspect of the equation; his only real concern seems to be the guns.
As for getting rid of background checks, that ridiculous idea is as inhuman as it is beyond contempt. The idea that we should allow guns to be sold to anyone and everyone will only result in more homicides and more massacres like Sandy Hook. Of course, that would buttress Pratt’s argument that everyone should be armed, wouldn’t it?
The answer to violence is not yet more violence. It’s not more guns. It’s not creating an environment where Americans live in fear, wondering when they’ll need to shoot someone in order to protect themselves or others. Isn’t it time we stopped living in fear? How about we start talking about ways to reduce violence instead of ways to ramp up the potential? Can’t we take control of our world without doing it out of fear?
Shouldn’t we be better than this?
