All gun control does is restrain law-abiding citizens. It will do nothing against violent criminals or those with mental illness.
(Photo: REUTERS/Rick Wilking) 

Many common sense solutions have been proposed that could be implemented almost immediately. But is that really the objective of those crying "we have to do something"?

A logical first step to securing schools is to allow teachers to be armed. Progressives have rejected the suggestion with every excuse in the book, including "teachers aren't trained to use a gun". Others claim since female teachers wear skirts, there's no place to hide the gun, and teachers are too attached to their students to ever fire on one. However, these remarks insinuate that law-abiding teachers, or citizens in general, are too ignorant and incompetent to handle and secure a gun. Apparently, their compassion for the one student inflicting harm would overwhelm their love for those students getting attacked. So, in essence, the teachers are more dangerous with a gun than a criminal.

Yet, it's not that the gun has to be used for it to be valuable. It's the fact that the gun is there, period. That is why the Colt's revolver was called the PEACEMAKER. Just the known presence of a firearm is a major deterrent.

A study from the 1950's to July of 2016, reveals over 98 percent of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. (Perpetrators know no one there has a gun or any other viable means of protection. However, gun control advocates refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact. (Therefore, a gun in these zones is the means of keeping the peace, not an automatic result of violence.

If I think someone is in our house, one pump of my shotgun will make them think twice about what they are doing. I likely won't even have to fire before they are heading out the door. Yet progressives want to deny American citizens that protection.

A common gun control propaganda move is to cry, "but what about the children?" Even former President Barack Obama pleaded, "maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence". (But in their efforts to stop that "one act of evil", how many others do we allow because people weren't able to protect themselves? How many women will we accept being raped? How many senior citizens will we tolerate being assaulted? How many families will we endure being victimized? How many defenseless people will we stand by and allow to be murdered?

Maybe we could try to stop one act of evil by arming a few well-trained teachers and administrators. Maybe we should stop "reducing" high arrest statics by ignoring them, as Sheriff Scott Israel did, and actually allow law enforcement to enforce the law. Then maybe we can actually protect the children because we honestly deal with those who have desires to hurt our children.

Progressives fall over themselves running to the microphone to accuse the gun for a massacre, calling for the prosecution of the NRA. With the Parkland school shooting, the progressive media once again opened their worn-out playbook, finding students willing to dominate the news cycle by claiming since they are victims, only they have the right to speak on the issue. Therefore, they declare the discussion is over. It is the same play they use with abortion, global warming and gender identity to forcefully shut down debate. However, several other students completely disagreeing with gun control are ironically denied any voice at all.

Americas are told "we have to do something." Most agree and have offered multiple solutions, especially ones specific to protecting schools. However, any person, including other Parkland students, who suggest anything other than some form of gun ban are dismissed, mocked and berated. As Che Guevara stated, "I have no house, wife, children, family or brothers. My friends are friends as long as they think like me politically." Which is why thousands of citizens disagreeing with him found themselves on the receiving end of a firing squad. I wonder how many of those victims would have appreciated the 2nd Amendment.

Gun control proposals are always presented as efforts to hinder criminals. However, their attempts to handicap criminals always result in restraining law-abiding citizens more. Over 80 percent of guns used in mass shootings are obtained illegally, so more laws or gun bans would not have prevented those tragedies. However, current laws would have prohibited the Parkland shooter from passing a background check, yet Sheriff Scott Israel put profit over protection, refusing to take action against the shooter at any of the dozens of encounters they had with him.

Obama's PROMISE program paid counties and schools for not arresting or reporting criminal activity among teenagers to decrease the "school-to-jail pipeline." Sheriff Israel, a fellow social justice warrior, immediately reduced crime by 60 percent, not by better policing or changing hearts, but by ignoring crime. Furthermore, the government paid him to look the other way as those crimes were committed. The Parkland shooter should have and would have been in the system if the sheriff had done his job. This would have allowed law enforcement to confiscate the shooter's weapons during any of the multiple visits they made to his home.

When progressive's policies fail, they have to find some other culprit because it can never be them. Therefore, more useless policies are proposed. However, criminals are rarely affected by more gun control laws as we aren't even enforcing the ones we already have. Police officers will tell you that when they find a gun on a suspect, it is most likely a stolen one. So it doesn't matter how many background checks are required, criminals set on committing crimes will get guns through crime.

All gun control does is restrain law-abiding citizens. It will do NOTHING against violent criminals or those with mental illness. Until America is ready to have a genuine and honest conversation regarding the true heart of this issue, we will never make any progress.

But that's just my 2 cents.

A stay-at-home mom, Pamela J. Adams maintains the informational site It includes her "Liberating Letters" blog, which discusses history, science, religion, and current events. A former teacher, she began her weekly blog as short lessons in letter form to her daughter for home schooling, which she now shares with all. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter at Liberating Letters or at You can find her books HERE. (

Engaging views and analysis from outside contributors on the issues affecting society and faith today.
CP VOICES do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).

Latest Voices