Liberals love to laugh at evangelicals who question evolution. Yet the Left's faith in gun control remains their most fundamentalist dogma. It is an abiding doctrine completely void of empirical reality.
Let's be perfectly clear: There is one thing, and one thing only, that could have stopped the shooter who murdered 12 innocent people and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., earlier this month — another person with a gun. Liberals can scoff at this. They can be outraged when a politician or a public figure makes the same point, yet it remains undeniably true.
In the days following the Colorado shooting tragedy, I read many columns advocating for more gun control. With each, I would fast forward to the part where the liberal writer was going to explain to me why the absence of another armed person in that movie theater was somehow a good thing. The argument is so patently stupid that I was fascinated anyone would dare make it.
Most liberals don't make this argument. They just cite some statistics about how many incidents of gun violence occur each year, with no mention of how many of these instances involved unregistered guns and convicted felons or were part of a crime.
Cenk Uygur, of the online news site Young Turks, actually goes there. Though we often disagree, I am a fan of Uygur because he has integrity and is willing to criticize his own side. That's rare in the often mindlessly partisan world of politics. Still, when it comes to guns, Uygur himself is mindless. In a column for the Huffington Post, he writes:
"They send out their Republican minions to say that the answer is more guns. If only other people in the crowd had guns, then everything would have been all right. Yes, because in that dark, smoke-filled theater if there were more than two or three shooters, everyone would have known who was the original shooter and less people would have been shot, right?
How would the third gunman know if the second gunman was part of the team that was shooting the place up (like Klebold and Harris at Columbine) or one of the guys trying to prevent it? Let alone the fourth or the fifth gunman, let alone the cops who show up."
Hmm. How do I put this? Mr. Uygur, you see that guy who is walking around and firing upon unarmed people who are screaming in terror? You shoot him. He's bad. What if there are two, three, or eight people doing the same thing? You shoot them too. They are also bad.
Is there the potential that such a scenario could become confusing and messy? Perhaps. But the subtext to what Uygur is saying is that gun owners are complete morons who can't make basic right-and-wrong decisions because they are in a dark theater. It's hard to imagine a single soul inside that theater who would've agreed in that terrifying moment with Cenk Uygur.
There are endless stories of people attempting to do harm to others with firearms who were prevented from doing so by another armed person. In virtually all of these cases, the gun owner who prevents the robbery, murder, or whatever crime is being attempted is a law-abiding citizen who is trained and carrying a registered weapon. You hear much less about these stories precisely because the prevention of the crime makes it less of a story.
The argument that liberals make amounts to this: That if only criminals can get their hands on these weapons and law-abiding citizens cannot, we would have less gun crime. However, why should good people have less access to firearms while bad people continue to have the same access they've always had?
It would be great to live in a world without guns. But liberals lost that argument a few centuries ago with the invention of personal firearms. It would be great to live in a world without drugs, but rational people, at this late date, understand that drug prohibition has been an utter and tragic failure. And yet some Americans still have deep faith in the War on Drugs. These people are wrong. Similarly, the belief held by liberals that gun control actually protects innocent citizens from violent citizens is pure fiction, an article of faith that has existed for so long that liberals simply accept and digest this core Left dogma.
Liberals will continue believing this. And they will continue to be drastically wrong in a manner that could — should they get their way — produce the most tragic consequences.
Jack Hunter assisted Sen. Jim DeMint with his latest book, Now or Never: Saving America From Economic Collapse. He is also the official campaign blogger for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, and he co-wrote Rand Paul's The Tea Party Goes to Washington. You can hear Southern Avenger commentaries on The Morning Buzz on 1250 WTMA.