The state of Massachusetts has some of the most extensive gun control laws in the nation. You have to have a permit to own a firearm, there are universal background checks, and extensive regulations on just what you can lawfully own.
These are measures we’ve been told are essential to prevent things like mass shootings, even by the Gun Violence Archive’s definition, which seems to be the only definition anti-gun officials and journalists seem to care about.
Of course, if we’re going to use that definition and argue that all of those laws are supposed to stop such shootings, then seven injured in Massachusetts is an incredible failure if you ask me.
Seven people were injured during a shooting Saturday morning during the Boston Caribbean Carnival celebration in heavily gun controlled Massachusetts.
Shots rang out around 7:45 a.m. “on Talbot Avenue near the intersection of Blue Hill Avenue,” WCVB reported.
Multiple people have been arrested in connection with the shooting and numerous firearms recovered.
There is an apparent history of violence as these celebrations in the Boston area.
However, what gets me is that there are seven injured people and multiple people arrested and in possession of guns, all while the gun control there is supposed to prohibit it.
“But they get guns from other states!” someone will say, trying to defend the failure.
The problem with that argument is that by saying that, you’re admitting that the gun control laws on the books don’t work. You’re trying to shift the blame, though, to other states while essentially admitting that these supposedly essential laws are only inhibiting the law-abiding.
Which is what we told you would happen when you went to pass such regulations.
Yet rather than recognize this fact, a fact that left seven people injured, Massachusetts looks to pass more and more gun control rather look to address the actual issues at play.
For example, there is a reason why there’s a history of violence at these celebrations. I’m not going to speculate as to what that issue is, but I’m pretty sure the local authorities know what’s what there. As such, why haven’t they addressed that rather than looking to pass more and more idiotic gun control measures, none of which will actually work?
Regardless of what, what we know is that if gun control worked as advertised, this wouldn’t have happened. We wouldn’t be seeing this happen. There wouldn’t be multiple people arrested with numerous firearms as the result of a shooting like this.
Criminals are going to get guns. You can try as you might to prevent that, but it’s not going to happen. They exist, at least in part, to bypass the laws on the books.
That also means the gun control laws, and they’ll take a certain glee in getting around those. After all, firearms are the tools of the trade, so to speak. They’re not going to just shrug and call it a day.
“But Tom, what if those guns were legally acquired?”
That’s highly doubtful, but even then, it calls the usefulness of these laws into question. After all, seven people were shot. If these were all lawfully acquired–again, I’m not holding my breath here, but for the sake of argument–then it suggests that these laws aren’t doing anything to keep them out of the hands of violent people.
Any way you slice it, this horrific event is a prime example of just how useless Massachusetts gun control actually is, especially if you’re trying to prevent violent crime. If you’re just trying to hurt law-abiding folks, though, then they’re doing their job spectacularly.