Appears more people are seeing the light.

IWF hits on one big problem with gun control

With a name like Independent Women’s Forum, one might expect it to not be all that independent and to actually parrot a lot of Democratic talking points. We know that most women tend to vote Democrat, though far from all.

Yet the organization actually takes the term “independent” seriously. I’ve seen far too many good things to come out of the group to think otherwise.

Today was no exception. They do a “two truths and a lie” thing and today, they talked about gun control.

We can all agree that we want to see fewer mass killings and less gun violence. The question is whether stricter gun-control laws will improve the situation or make it worse. Because of the politicized nature of gun policy, it’s essential to get past the rhetoric and sift through the facts to answer that question.  How much do you know about gun control? Can you identify which of the following is the lie?

A. New gun control legislation will reduce crime.

B. More guns in more public places leads to less gun violence.

C. There are far more defensive gun uses than murders in a given year.

Now, your average daily Bearing Arms ready is going to know which are which. However, not everyone does, which is why a format like this works.

So just what did IWF say?

A. FALSE. In short, gun control legislation does not focus on the root causes of human behavior, including violence, crime, and untreated mental illness. At the heart of gun control initiatives is the hope that criminals will obey the law, but, in fact, they rarely do.

Congress, as well as state legislatures, would have us think that just one more gun-control law will magically reduce crime. But they have been saying that for decades, with no evidence of improvement. Then they offer the same legislation again.

Instead of reducing crime, new gun control legislation would:

• Not change criminal behavior. It only creates a false sense of security.
• Make law-abiding citizens less safe, especially victims of domestic violence.
• Turn law-abiding citizens into instant felons for ordinary, safe behavior.
• Be cost prohibitive for the poorest families to protect themselves.

Now, the other two are obviously true, so I won’t touch on them. Instead, I want to comment on this, which is important.

While “shall not be infringed” will win applause in the Second Amendment community, mostly because it’s accurate, it’s not a winning message with those on the fence in any way. Talking about our rights may be completely accurate, but its reach is limited.

This approach, however, is one that can work.

It also has the benefit of being accurate.

Violent crime is violent crime. No one feels better that they were robbed with a knife as opposed to a gun. No one mourns the loss of a loved one less because they were beaten to death rather than shot. All violent crimes should be looked at similarly because, at the end of the day, it’s the people who are violent.

Focusing on that, on the behavior and how to prevent it, is something that can ultimately convince people that gun control isn’t the answer.