On October 1, 2017 a man opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel, using a gun he shot at the crowd below, killing 59 people and wounding many more. He was killed by police in what appeared to be suicide by police when they stormed his room.

On February 14, 2018, a young man pulled a fire alarm at a school in Ft. Lauderdale, FL school and waited for students to begin walking out. As they left the building he began shooting, killing 17 people and wounding numerous others. He was taken into custody by police and is currently on trial for numerous count of murder.

In the days and weeks since these shootings there has been a robust discussion around guns. In particular the discussion surrounds the private ownership of “assault” style weapons; although some question the legality of a private citizen owning any gun at all.

In response to these tragic events, one writer said not to blame mentally ill people, but rather, blame the guns. Another writer said the fault lies solely with “toxic masculinity.” Still another person claimed the blame should go to video games and rock music.

I find all three of those opinions to be intellectually dishonest and lacking in any credibility.

Let’s add some perspective to this discussion. First, let’s consider the source of other ills in our culture and what we intend to do about them:

Spoons and forks are clearly causing people to be overweight – should we ban them?
Cars are obviously causing people to have accidents – should we ban them?
Alcohol is causing people to get drunk – should we outlaw it?
Wedding rings are causing people to cheat – should we make them illegal?

I doubt you answered “yes” to any of the examples given above. If you’re honest, you will admit the reason you didn’t answer yes, is because each of the things listed above are merely objects. As reasonable people we admit that inanimate objects have no ability to cause any person to do anything. It’s not the spoon causing people to be overweight, it’s their decision to continue eating.

In each of the examples above we place the blame where it belongs, on the person using the object. How is it we don’t do the same when discussing guns? It seems some in our culture want to place blame on anything other than the individual pulling the trigger. Somehow, a person that decides to start shooting other people is absolved of their responsibility for that decision and all responsibility is placed squarely in the hands of…the gun?

But we must take notice of an exception to this strange denial of responsibility. When someone commits an act of terror, we blame the person. We seek to know the motives and understand the “why” behind their terrorist actions. At no time has anyone ever blamed the bomb for killing innocent people, blame is always placed squarely on the shoulders of the bomber.

How is it a terrorist bomber is held responsible for his decision to build a bomb and use it to kill innocent people, but when another person chooses to use a gun it’s now the guns fault? There’s a distinct lack of logic here. To help us understand this strange dichotomy, let’s ask ourselves who is at fault for the following tragedies:

Timothy McVeigh used fuel and fertilizer to create a bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City, OK.
Numerous individuals hijacked planes and used them to bring down the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, killing 2,996 people.
The Boston City marathon bomber used pressure cookers and nails (among other things) to create two bombs that killed several people and injured dozens more.
A woman drove her car into the Oklahoma State Fair, killing 4 people and injuring many more.

Who’s to blame? A rationale person would quickly conclude that the person that built the bomb, not the bomb is at fault. The person that hijacked the plane and flew into the building, not the plane, is to blame. The woman behind the wheel of the car, not the car, is to blame.

An inconvenient piece of information gun control advocates don’t want to acknowledge is the number of gun crimes committed by legal gun owners. In other words, what percentage of gun crimes are committed by the legal owner of a gun? Research suggests the number is as low as 3% and could be 18%. Many of the studies conducted include suicides as a “gun crime,” and in some states the law is constructed in a way so even a legal gun owner defending his home is reported as having committed a “gun-crime.” Knowing this, it is easy to assume the numbers are lower than reported and the 3% number could be less than 1%.

There’s little evidence to support the idea that stricter gun laws will prevent gun crimes. The state I live in, Maryland, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Even laws specifically preventing minors from obtaining guns of any kind, especially a handgun. And yet, just recently a 17 year old used a handgun to injure two classmates before he was killed by law enforcement. Why didn’t this young man obey the laws against him having a gun?

To the sensible mind the idea that a law will stop a criminal from carrying out criminal behavior is absurd. If a person is bent on taking a human life are we really going to assume a law against using a gun will prevent such a crime?

Further evidence that gun laws are not effective can be seen in the cities with the strictest gun laws. In these cities violent crimes with guns are astronomical as criminals clearly don’t respect the gun laws of the city. And in the country with the most restrictive gun laws, Brazil, gun related crimes are so prevalent and out of control that lawmakers are debating repealing the law that took guns out of law abiding citizens’ hands.

I’m all for safety. I will be the first to grab a seat at the table to discuss how we can create a safer society. As long as that discussion is based in reality, uses sound reasoning, and puts the rights of citizens first. Anything less is a step toward socialism.