There is a nice article by Rand Paul today stating his position on so-called “gun control.” (Which is really a “people control” which amounts to “rights infringement.”) In the course of his argument, Paul presents this:
For every national tragedy that happens, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Americans preventing similar killings from happening, thanks to the use of personal firearms. Last June, for example, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home while he was baby-sitting his three younger siblings. The children were home alone on a Saturday afternoon when an unrecognized woman rang their doorbell. After the 14-year-old boy refused to open the door, he heard a loud bang, which indicated that someone was trying to break into the house. The boy hurried his younger siblings upstairs and collected a handgun from his parents’ room. When the boy rounded the top of the stairs, there was a man standing in the doorway with a gun pointed at him. The boy shot at the intruder and saved the lives of his three younger siblings.
I hate to say this, but my impression of many who want to “control guns” is that they would react to this with: “Fourteen-year-olds should not be allowed to touch a gun under any circumstances.” I could be wrong, and I hope I am wrong, but I doubt that I am.
As Rand Paul points out in the article, and as many, many others have pointed out recently, the evidence says, “More guns mean less crime.” But the “gun control” people simply do not seem to care about that. Paul does not cite a source for the story above (and I didn’t expect that in an op-ed piece like this), but assuming it is true, my best guess is that in many locales, the parents of the boy would be charged with something-or-other for allowing the teenagers to touch a gun.
This is one of the current bandwagons driving around our culture. Bandwagons usually carry a load that contains a heavy dose of insanity.