A Letter to the Editor:

I must pose a question or two, to those who think that the illegalization of any firearm would solve problems like the horrible tragedy suffered by those unfortunate theater patrons in Aurora, Colorado. Such logic has led to the birth of statements following the same manner of comparison like; automobiles are responsible for vehicular homicide, and so on… The anti-gun community generally hates these statements although they follow the exact logic they are using to condemn gun ownership. Any person who is at peace with the notion of cold-blooded murder does not care whether his firearm was acquired or carried, or used legally. Thus, anti-gun laws will only protect law-abiding citizens from law-abiding citizens. The common criminal, through actions that have defined him as criminal, acts in spite of law. He has expressed his intention to be lawless therefore, the weight of the laws restrictions rest solely on the Lawful Citizen.

A case in point that supports my claim is the very fact that the murderer’s house was booby trapped with explosives. Now call me crazy, but the last time I checked, making booby traps with high explosives was illegal. Most of those whom will read this wouldn’t make explosive booby traps because you are law abiding citizens. I wouldn’t do it either because I am a law abiding citizen as well. Did the standing law stop this man from acquiring the required materials and making these explosive booby traps anyway?  If he wouldn’t have confessed to the existence of these traps, would the law have protected the lives of those who would have fallen victim to the blast? I think this serves as another piece of fine evidence suggesting that someone who is bent on committing such crimes will do so, no matter whether you make the tools illegal to possess or not.

We see this formula all the time. We only need to substitute the factors in this equation with one like “cocaine,” for instance. This substance has been illegal for many years. Have we seen a decrease in users, or in availability for purchase? Truthfully, how effective vs costly have our anti-drug laws been? Now don’t get me wrong, I do not intend to advocate cocaine use, as it is a highly dangerous and addictive drug, with no real medical applications outside of anesthesia. I’m just suggesting that any criminalization of firearms would produce a similar result to what we see with “the war on drugs.” Citizens who intend to obey the law would be without protection. Criminals by their very nature operate outside of the law, and will source weapons by any means necessary, just like cocaine.  As a result, who would be affected by government anti-gun legislation, the law abiding citizen, or the criminal who doesn’t give a damn about the law in the first place?

I will concede that I am not the greatest military tactician that ever lived, but my experience is well above average. I am an U.S. Army infantry veteran and long-time firearms enthusiast. With nearly two decades of tactical shooting experience, I feel confident in making the following statement. If there had been just one armed and appropriately trained citizen in this scenario, there is a great likelihood that there would be less than 12 fatalities resulting from this horrific event.

I feel it should be obvious to those who have a keen eye for all things apparent; that the answer doesn’t lie with fewer guns in circulation. It lies with more law abiding citizens who own firearms, and have a solid foundation in firearms education.  I just wish the “anti-gun crowd” would abstain from their impetuous “spraying and praying,” and open their eyes and ears so that they might focus on the real threats to the American way of life. As the old adage would suggest, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” This is adage is repeated often, as it is undisputable, and it IS the bottom line.

-Christopher A. Mann