Survivor of Columbine massacre says ‘no’ to more gun control laws, asks how ‘one more law will change anything’

After virtually every major mass shooting, anti-gun politicians immediately exploit the tragedy to demand more and increasingly stricter gun control laws that, if even passed or implemented, inevitably fail to prevent future mass shooting incidents.

Now a survivor of a terrible mass shooting, Evan Todd of 1999’s Columbine High School massacre, has spoken out forcefully against the incessant push for more gun control laws in the wake of mass shootings, the Western Journal reported.

Todd’s thesis is incredibly simple — mass shooters already violate numerous gun control laws already on the books before they ever pull the trigger, which raises the question of how any additional laws against guns would actually serve to stop their murderous acts.

“What makes you think one more law will change anything?”

“The two murderers at Columbine, who tried to kill me too, broke so many laws that I won’t be able to list them in one tweet,” Todd wrote in a post to Twitter on Friday. “I have a question for all the gun control extremists. What makes you think one more law will change anything?”

To be sure, Todd faced some pushback on that stance from anti-gun commenters, but he had a legitimate response to such critiques, such as one pushing the deliberately faulty logic of having no laws at all since criminals won’t follow them.

Todd replied, “Laws are a mild deterrent for good people, but laws like murder are necessary because one person violates the right of another. The murderer must be brought to justice. Me owning a gun does not violate anyone else’s rights.”

Another commenter falsely suggested that Todd’s stance indicated that he didn’t want to do anything at all to address mass shootings, but the Columbine survivor quickly corrected that and tweeted in response, “I didn’t ever say to do nothing about it. In fact I have a lot to say about what we should do about it. I have worked with hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers, administrators, officers, and many others to do something about it.”

Gun control doesn’t work

The basic premise of Todd’s initial tweet, that additional gun control laws won’t actually stop mass shootings, is not something that he just dreamed up himself but rather is common sense that is understood by anybody who is willing to look beyond the particular type of weapon used in a given mass shooting incident.

According to an NRA-ILA essay about “Why gun control doesn’t work,” it was duly noted that “Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding people who go through legal avenues to obtain firearms.”

Thus, given that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally — or pass background checks to obtain them legally prior to engaging in crime — it is clear that background checks and laws regulating possession have little to no effectiveness in regard to the stated purposes.

Likewise, statistics show that gun crimes are reduced in areas where law-abiding citizens are well-armed and are increased in cities and states with strict gun control laws that generally disarm or restrict the Second Amendment-protected rights of good people.

More gun control laws “are unnecessary and useless”

Similarly, David Harsanyi of The Daily Signal recently wrote of the predictable gun control push following two high-profile mass shootings in California and detailed how many different gun control were already on the books in that state but failed to prevent the murders from occurring, and wrote, “None of this is to argue that simply because some people ignore laws, they are unnecessary or useless. It’s to argue that laws that almost exclusively target innocent people from practicing a constitutional right, and do nothing to stop criminals, are unnecessary and useless.”

“The central problem in this debate is that Democrats believe civilian gun ownership itself is a plague on the nation, so it doesn’t really matter to them what gun is being banned or what law is being passed, as long as something is being ‘done,'” he concluded. “The other side believes that being able to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their community from criminality — and, should it descend into tyranny, the government — is a societal good. They see gun bans as autocratic and unconstitutional, and, also, largely unfeasible. And they’re right.”

Latest News