In the wake of the mass murder that took place at a high school on February 14, there are loud calls by many for stricter gun controls by the federal government.  There are always a few who will say guns should be completely banned, but most are wise enough to know they will not achieve this in one step.

Of course, those who call for an outright ban are just calling for a ban for those without a government ID.  They are not proposing to ban guns for the police or military.

The biggest contradiction has to be coming from those who loudly supported Black Lives Matter and the kneeling of NFL players.  On the one hand, they are outraged at the abuse by the police.  On the other hand, they want only the police to own guns.  Can somebody please explain this to me?

There is little chance that there will be any significant changes legislatively.  Ironically, the chances are greater now with Trump in office than with Obama in office.  Whenever there was a shooting that received national attention when Obama was in office, the calls for more gun control would start.  But the opposition would quickly respond in large numbers.  Republicans did not trust Obama and would immediately say that Obama wants to ban guns.  Obama was the best salesman for guns and bullets in history.

Now that Trump is in office, there is a greater threat that something could be done (and not on the positive side).  Trump has little in the way of principles, so he would have no trouble signing additional gun control legislation under political pressure.  The big question is if the Republicans (and a few Democrats) in Congress will get enough pressure to resist.

It is amazing how hysterical people can get when such an event occurs, although I have no doubt that the narrative is pushed by the establishment media.

First, let’s put it into perspective.  Every day, about five times as many people die in the U.S. in a car accident as died in that one shooting incident that received national attention.  It is tragic for those involved, but it is a minuscule percentage of the population of a country that has over 325 million people.

The president could go on television and tell everyone to make sure they take extra Vitamin D3 pills in the winter and to cut down on processed foods.  If just 1% of the population were to follow his advice, it could save thousands of lives.

The politicians always like to solve the previous problem.  Therefore, in this case, they want to raise the minimum age to 21 when you can buy a gun.  What happens the next time there is a shooting with a 22 year old?  Will they have to raise the age again?

Of course, the murderer ignored all of the laws anyway, and that is mainly the point.  He didn’t obey the laws against murder.  He did not obey the government gun free zone at the government school.

I don’t understand the family members and students who survived the shooting who took trips to Tallahassee and Washington DC to make political statements (on many sides).  Maybe they are just angry and want something done, but you would think they would be too busy grieving to start a political crusade.  It’s hard to judge not being in that situation, but it just surprised me how quickly it all happened.

I have heard many gun control arguments through the years.  The most common now is to point to other countries that have strict gun control (or even almost total gun bans) that have less violence than the U.S.

It is easy to find articles or posts about any number of countries.  For example, I hear that guns are essentially non-existent in Japan, and the Japanese have a very low murder rate.

I would just like to point out that first-generation Japanese people living in America do not kill people either.  It’s not as if a Japanese guy gets to the U.S. and finds he has easy access to guns so he buys one and decides to kill people.

There are countries with strict gun control with low violence. There are countries with strict gun control with high violence.  There are countries with relatively easy access to guns with low violence.  There are countries with relatively easy access to guns with high violence.

The same can be said with different states and cities within the United States.

In other words, gun laws don’t matter that much at all. If anything, I think stricter gun control in an already relatively violent place just makes things worse because it disarms the good people.

But the main feature of violence has nothing to do with access to guns.  The main feature is culture and ethics.

The school shooter came from a broken family.  The school shooter was probably on psychiatric drugs.  The school shooter had been in JROTC and surrounded by our culture that promotes militarism and violence.

Most people from a broken family do not become killers.  Most people on drugs don’t become killers.  Most people in the military don’t become killers unless they are doing it overseas.

But let’s face the fact that this has nothing to do with a gun problem.  It is a culture problem.  We live in a society that promotes violence.

Japan has its own set of issues, but the use of violence (outside of the state) is not one of them.  Kids are brought up in a stable but strict household.  They are taught to respect authority (which isn’t always good either).

Meanwhile, the government failed in every way with this mass shooting.  The government’s laws didn’t work.  The government school didn’t keep the students safe.  The on-duty school officer did nothing as shots rang out.  And the FBI completely failed.

The FBI is busy investigating (making up) a story about Russia influencing U.S. elections.  The FBI is busy investigating college basketball programs for paying players.  Meanwhile, the FBI gets reports that this guy is going to be a school shooter, and they do nothing about it.  If that’s the case, what is the point of mass surveillance?  They can’t even make use of information that is out in the open.  (I know the purpose of mass surveillance is people control and not safety.)

Yet, for some reason, many people want to turn to the government to solve the problem of shootings.  This in itself is part of the problem because government is the entity with a legal monopoly on the use of violence.  Yet, people want more government, and that too is part of the culture of violence.

Let’s face it; gun control is really people control.  It is no coincidence that all of the worst tyrants in history favored some form of gun (or weapon) control.  Stalin and Hitler believed in gun control.  The Jews in 1930s Germany were largely disarmed.

The gun control people will say, “That can never happen here.”  And you know what?  They are probably right because a large segment of the American population will never disarm themselves.