"Back In the Fifties"

People are noting that, back in the fifties we didn't have news of mass shootings and major gun crimes every day like we do now. They ask, "Why not then?" What, they ask, did we do differently back then that we don't do now. They ask the question, but they don't want to hear the answer. The answer is, we didn't have the ubiquitous anti-gun laws we have now. The law-abiding weren't as defenseless. You could buy a gun anywhere, in "big box stores," small "Mom and Pop hardware stores, and even in some corner drug stores (where they sold almost everything), by unfettered mail order. They didn't have people trying to ERASE the very KNOWLEDGE of the existence of guns from everybody's memory. 200 years ago there were not ANY "school shootings" of students and teachers because the kids brought their guns to school WITH them, in case they saw a squirrel they could shoot to add to the dinner table on the way to or from school.  Anybody who came in wanting to shoot up the place would soon resemble "Swiss cheese."

What we've done is take as many guns as we could AWAY from the law abiding, leaving the field open to those who IGNORE all those silly, stupid, "gun laws." And crime has predictably grown, right along with the tightening gun laws. The key to reducing mass shootings and other "gun crime" is to give their guns back to the law-abiding and let them start killing those who obey NO laws. let alone laws that say they can't use a gun in doing their crimes. But they don't want to hear that. They cringe in horror at the very mention of letting the law abiding be armed for self defense. They continue to make their silly anti-gun laws that CREATE opportunities for the bad guys. Go to ANY liberal-run city with tight gun laws, and they will predictably have high "gun crime" stats. That's a given. But liberals will not recognize it, and the carnage continues. The article linked here was written a few years ago, but it makes some pertinent points that are still relevant, today. (National Review)