USA: Illusory Disarmament

I keep watching, reading, and listening to some analysts—and other so-called experts—saying with great enthusiasm that the US is preparing a disarmament action. As I say every time I hear it, and I reiterate here: this is utter nonsense, the result of misinformation or ideological bias.

The issue of greater gun restrictions has been raised in that country since at least the 80s. Virtually every US president during their terms has faced one or more incidents that sparked the debate about guns, and the response, always rhetorical, has been in favor of greater restrictions. But these have never actually taken hold.

The only brief exception occurred during the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, which passed the so-called Bredy Act. This law, like the one being discussed now, prohibited the sale of assault rifles and limited the number of rounds in a magazine to a maximum of 20. The law lasted exactly 10 years, and after extensive analysis, the FBI concluded that it had not provided any benefit. For this reason, it lost its validity.

American disarmament advocates have a gigantic practical problem to support their argument: despite successive record gun sales, crime in the US has plummeted for the tenth consecutive year, reaching levels only seen in 1960. Therefore, they so often use, almost as if they crave it, the shedding of innocent blood, especially children, to start the general outcry for greater controls.

It's worth remembering that in the 90s, several American states began to allow concealed carry, with little or no restriction. Private businesses, such as a famous coffee shop, one of the largest in the US, also began to allow – and even encourage – their customers to enter armed, concealed or openly. Some states even allowed carrying weapons in bars. Needless to say, the prophets of doom predicted daily bloodbaths. They are still waiting for that to happen, as there hasn't been a single serious incident.

What is rarely shown – and I say this again due to ignorance or ideology – is that, since the attack at Virginia Tech, the real debate in the US is whether so-called "gun-free zones" should exist, meaning places where no one can enter or remain armed. These gun-free zones are obviously an invitation to the lunatics who want to cause the greatest possible trauma, and that means causing the greatest number of casualties, for those who choose the locations where their chances are highest.

No national news outlet had the courage to report that the Aurora movie theater killer, even though there were larger theaters just a few blocks from his house that were also showing the Batman movie, chose the only one in town that didn't allow its customers to enter armed. And since law-abiding citizens respect the law, on that fateful night, the only one to enter armed was the maniac.

In another incident, a few days later, a violent boyfriend stormed into a shopping mall armed, shot his girlfriend and another person. The massacre would have continued if it hadn't been for an armed citizen. Seeing that he would face resistance, he took refuge in a store and shot himself.

Such occurrences are generally downplayed by the press, but not by legislators and the average American – including several sheriffs, who have stated that any federal agent who dares to try to take weapons from their citizens will be immediately arrested. There, they do not strengthen the illusion of disarmament, but rather the end of places where no one can legally enter armed and, consequently, react to a possible attack.

There is no protection in denial, and therefore the only way to stop an armed madman is by having someone armed, trained, and willing to confront him. Enough of the false illusions applauded by the "experts" of a country with more than 50 murders a year.