We need gun rights because men aren’t angels

Being an advocate for individual rights and civil liberties can be difficult. When terrorists attack, when the economy fails, when a pandemic strikes, and yes, when evil visits schools , the natural instinct is to demand security above all else.

So, after each tragedy, I easily understand the reaction that soon fills my social media feeds: “We have to do something. There should be laws restricting guns so they don’t get in the hands of these deranged murderers.”

The logical impulse for those of us who defend private gun ownership is to avoid such discussions altogether, to let the passions settle. But on the contrary, it’s more important than ever to present our position with clear-eyed resolve.

Even against the backdrop of each latest tragedy, I still support the fundamental right to armed self-defense. Especially in an imperfect world where madness abounds, I oppose policies that would restrict legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

I say this despite having grown up in Canada and never owned a gun. I’ve shot handguns and rifles about a dozen times at friends’ invitations but have never gone hunting. For about a decade before moving to the Virginia suburbs, I lived in Washington, D.C., where, despite the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller, it’s still hard to obtain a firearm and near impossible to carry one legally. So I hope you can accept that I’m not a “gun nut.”

But you don’t have to be crazy about guns to recognize that no law could make the 400 million firearms in America disappear. Even making it illegal to own a gun wouldn’t prevent a criminal or madman from carrying out the malevolent deed to which he has committed himself. Robust policies to prevent legal gun ownership only translate to guns being overwhelmingly possessed by those willing to break the law — that is, criminals.

Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, is a “gun-free zone,” as is almost every place that has become a target for mass murder in recent years. Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook tragedy occurred, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. None of the measures at the top of gun control advocates’ agenda — such as banning so-called assault weapons (ordinary rifles with certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips or bayonet mounts) and closing gun show loopholes — would’ve averted these shootings. The Newtown killer stole the pistols he used, and the Las Vegas concert murderer passed all background checks with flying colors.

We’d be much better off focusing on improvements we can make in identifying and treating mental illness, the common factor in most of these incidents, and ensuring that disqualifying records make it into the database used for background checks (which would’ve stopped the shooters at Virginia Tech and the Charleston and San Antonio churches). The Parkland, Florida, high school killer had a long record of mental health and behavioral problems, but none of them stopped him from passing several checks. The Buffalo shooter from earlier this month had had a mental health evaluation last year but was released after just a day and a half.

There are problems with dispossession statutes too. Not every felony is violent — why should we stop Martha Stewart from owning guns? — while some misdemeanors are.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t have any gun regulations. Cracking down on “straw purchasers” (buying a gun for someone who’s not allowed to have one) is a good idea, and military weapons such as rocket launchers and hand grenades have no place in civilian life. Red flag laws, which allow police or family members to petition for the removal of firearms from people who may be dangerous to themselves or others, can catch mental health problems that otherwise fall through the cracks but must be narrowly drawn to prevent abuse and over-aggressive policing.

On the other hand, it’s reasonable for someone to have a gun to protect herself or her family. That’s why the Second Amendment is so important: Americans cherish their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness so much that they instituted a government that protects their right to defend against anyone who would threaten them.

After the 1999 Columbine shootings, Colorado passed a series of laws that should serve as a national model. Some of them consist of what people call “gun control,” while others are in the “gun rights” category. The most important one was the Concealed Carry Act, which has saved countless lives, including at an Aurora church where an off-duty police officer in 2012 killed a career criminal who was targeting congregants — three months before the more famous massacre at a movie theater in the same town, which the killer chose for its status as a “gun-free zone.” These cohesive measures are based on an obvious principle that enjoys broad public support: Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous, while guns in the right hands protect public safety.

Call me a “Constitution nut,” but I’m crazy about allowing people to live their lives with the maximum freedom possible. If I could snap my fingers and end gun violence, I would. I’d even take guns away from hunters and sportsmen if it meant better self-defense for the rest of us.

But men aren’t angels , and, by definition, criminals don’t follow the law — which is why, in the wake of each latest shooting, I still support the right to bear arms.