"Is gun control the answer to Aurora?" asked National Review Online as its online survey question. No surprise there, as Aurora has taken the place of Columbine in our societal consciousness. The answer, as the vast majority of NRO readers see it, is No, and I can understand why. The correct answer, however, is Yes.
The problem with the question is the definition of Gun Control. To many, it is the concept of controlling who has guns. This is the Obama administration’s view, and that of the UN. In those circles, on those upon whom the state confers its blessing should be allowed to have guns, or at the very least, the state should be able to place tight restrictions upon who can have guns, and how many, and what ammunition can be used, and for what purpose, and where a gun can be carried or used. This is gun control for the progressive, for the liberal, for the intellectually blind and dishonest.
I believe that, to those whose emotions have not run away with their intelligence, gun control is much simpler. It is the concept of knowing how and when to use a gun. I practice gun control every time I hold a weapon, and gun control is good. Unfortunately, it’s quite possible that no one in Aurora was able to exercise gun control at the time of the shootings, as only one we can be sure of was breaking the law that night.
Emotions run high when people choose to disobey the law and take the lives of innocents. We question what could have been done, or done better, or what laws could have been passed, or who could have been given more power, to prevent the situation. People can do little but respond when others disregard the law, but only if they are given the capability to do so. We cannot legislate morality, behavior, or the thoughts that pervade a sick mind. Power can only be used to control those willing to be controlled. It cannot control those willing to risk the wrath of the state. The laws currently on the books, both state and federal, could not have prevented Columbine, or Oklahoma City, or Aurora, simply because no law can prevent a law breaker from breaking the law. It takes a human choice, both to break the law, or adhere to it.
To the progressive left, Gun Control means taking guns away from everyone not part of the control measures of the state. If such blindness to reality ever achieves its goal, the lessons otherwise will be swift in coming. Taking guns from those willing to adhere to the laws will have no affect on the amount of crime committed with guns. It will only affect the number of those killed or injured, and that number will only rise.
