Following incidents of gun violence, there is always discussion about how to keep the same thing from happening again. Democrats push the idea that if you support the right to bear arms, you have little regard for another’s life. This could not be further from the truth.
These assumptions are based on the fact that gun owners still firmly believe in ownership even after lives are lost. But this stance, seemingly shocking to some, is not one that disregards life. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is nothing inherently anti-life about gun ownership. Approximately 42% of U.S. households have a gun in the home. Those numbers fluctuate over time. Currently, that figure is down from an early 1990s high when it stood at 51%.
It is worth repeating: Guns protect life and allow for the defense of ourselves, others, property, and businesses.
There is sure to be continued talk about what guns are considered “appropriate” for private ownership and which should be restricted. One such gun is the AR-15. On Monday, hours after 10 people were killed at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and current Stanford University professor Michael McFaul tweeted: “You cannot be pro-life and pro-AR15 at the same time.”
Emotions are always high in the aftermath of gun violence, but this statement is neither helpful nor true. It supposes that those who believe in Second Amendment rights somehow approve of violent, criminal actions that go against established laws and human decency. It also treats the issue as just an AR-15 problem when, in fact, any gun can take a life. However, it’s quite apparent that in a country with roughly 393 million guns and counting, the overwhelming majority of guns aren’t used to take an innocent life. Additionally, the arrest affidavit for the Colorado gunman lists the weapon used as a pistol. Though it is unknown what exactly was used, the suspect purchased a semi-automatic Ruger AR-556 in the days preceding his attack.
Believing in the sanctity of innocent life for those born and unborn is a viewpoint that is not at all in conflict with gun ownership. This even includes being “pro-AR15,” as McFaul put it. One absolutely does not void the other, though it sure makes for a viral tweet during a sensitive time.
People of all stripes should be open to conversations that support responsible gun ownership because the truth is that law enforcement is not always able to get there in time. Protecting life in the womb and outside of it is a good and honorable thing. Supporting the right to defend life does not make you a hypocrite.
Of the 10 people killed on Monday, one was officer Eric Talley, an 11-year veteran of the Boulder Police Department. Talley’s father, Homer, described his son as a Second Amendment supporter, going so far as to say the massacre was “a senseless act, and that is just it. The situation [Eric] found himself in wasn’t one that the government could protect him from.”
Every person is horrified by the shocking violence that took place at a Boulder grocery store on Monday afternoon. The incalculable loss will forever be felt by the families of the victims. But the list of responsible parties includes only one man, not every gun owner and Second Amendment advocate. There are worthy conversations to have about preventing deranged individuals from committing acts of violence. But this dialogue should never conclude that all gun owners and advocates are at fault. It should also dispense with the false notion that to be pro-gun is, in any way, to be anti-life.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
